Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The actual provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 are that the tax on incomes of $18,000 to $45,000 will reduce from 19c to 16c in the dollar and that the flat $45,000 to $200,000 threshold, taxed at 30c in the dollar, will now split into two, where $45,000 to $135,000 will be taxed at 30c and $135,000 to $190,000 will be taxed at 37c. The 37c tax rate was the subject of the coalition's very sensible stage 3 tax cut legislation. Labor has claimed this will be broadly revenue-neutral. However, Treasury has said the measure will cost at least an extra $1.3 billion over the next four years, while, over the medium term, the measure will increase tax receipts by $28 billion over the next decade. This in effect means that, going into the future, this will make a lot of our taxpayers significantly worse off with bracket creep. The fact that the government has not addressed this has shown, yet again, that, since coming to office, the Prime Minister and the government have made the wrong decisions. They've been very distracted by other matters and they have also been breaking promises at every opportunity.

Meanwhile, in the first 18 months of Labor's government, personal income tax has risen by a record 27 per cent. However, the purchasing power of an Australian earning a gross salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,000. It has fallen by $7,600 since Labor came to office, and Labor has no answers as to how to address this. This is a symptom of economic mismanagement, where we still see headline inflation remaining far too high—much higher than most other OECD countries and our competitors.

One of the other objections to this legislation was that this was another broken promise of this Prime Minister and this government. And, just to reiterate, some of those promises that were made before and after the election were that there would be a $275 reduction in energy prices. Broken promise. There will be no change to super taxes. Broken promise. There would be an increase in real wages. Broken promise. There will be no changes to franking credits. Broken promise. 'You will all have cheaper mortgages; all Australians will have cheaper mortgages,' said the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Broken promise. Let's tell that to the average mortgage holder. The average mortgage holder in my electorate of Hughes, for example, is now paying $25,000 a year more. They now have to find $500 a week in after-tax income to pay their mortgage. 'There will be no changes to stage 3 tax cuts,' said the Prime Minister. 'My word is my bond.' Another broken promise.

While it is the case that the coalition will support this legislation because we are a party that is committed to lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation, what is important here is that Australians are now seeing this Prime Minister cannot be trusted. His repetitive oath, 'My word is my bond,' and further broken promises mean that he has broken trust with the Australian people.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. The great part about these tax cuts is every taxpayer gets one. It's simple. In my electorate of Hunter, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut under our new tax cuts, with 86 per cent of Hunter taxpayers receiving an even bigger tax cut from 1 July. Australians across the board are doing it tough, and tough times call for tough decisions. What we have seen is a leader who is willing to make some tough decisions. I know in my electorate the people congratulate the Prime Minister for making that tough decision.

When the previous government legislated the original stage 3 tax cuts five years ago, the world was a very different place. It was before a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, persistent and stubborn high inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty that put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressures. There is no doubt that this decision was very difficult politically. But this is about people and not about politics, and it's the responsible thing to do. We are making the right decision, not the easy one, to make sure that cost-of-living relief goes to everyone, especially those who are doing it tough.

So here are the facts. From 1 July this year the government 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.

The 45 per cent threshold will be lifted on 1 July for the first time since Labor was last in office. What does that mean for taxpayers in the Hunter electorate? Our new tax cuts will make a real difference for 73,000 taxpayers who will receive a tax cut. It means that 63,000 taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than what was being proposed under the old plan. This translates to a larger tax cut for 90 per cent of female taxpayers. Nurses, teachers, childcare educators, chefs and truckies are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Parents, particularly women with young children, will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's changes through increases to their take-home pay. Under the proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. The old plan would have seen them receive a big fat zero—doughnuts. This will significantly boost the take-home pay for Australians on modest incomes and people working part-time.

So let's break it down into numbers. Someone on the average Australian wage, of around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 year. That's around $29 a week, and it's more than double what they would have received under the old plan. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000 with one partner earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, which is around $50 a week, and about $1,600 a year more than what they would have got under the old plan. A person earning $40,000 a year will get a tax cut of $654, compared with nothing under the previous plan. A person earning $100,000 will get a tax cut of $2,179. That's $804 more than they would have received under the previous plan. And a person earning $200,000 will still get a tax cut, which will be $4,529.

Over the last few weeks I've been out speaking to my community about the tax cuts and what they mean for local residents. Emma from Branxton is a registered nurse in the Hunter electorate. She earns around $90,000 a year and paid $21,517 in income tax in the 2023-24 financial year. On the same salary Emma will pay $1,929 less in tax in the 2024-25 financial year under the government's new tax plan. That is $804 more than under the previous plan. Gordon is an electrician in Lake Macquarie and is married to Tracy, who is at home caring for their child. Gordon expects his wage to be around $130,000 in the 2024-25 financial year. With the new tax cuts, Gordon will receive $3,379 of income tax relief.

While these tax cuts benefit everyone, I understand that some people in my community who make over $150,000 might not be entirely happy with these changes. I want to reassure those individuals that you will still receive a tax cut. Actually, you'll get the largest tax cut of all. 'How?' you ask. We're increasing the highest tax threshold from $180,000 a year to $190,000 for the first time in 16 years. Just like everyone else, these individuals have expenses, like school fees, childcare fees, health insurance and housing costs, either rent or mortgage. Many of them bought homes when interest rates were expected to stay low, but now they're dealing with higher rates, like many other Australians. They are facing similar financial pressures. They've been waiting for tax relief, and we're delivering it by raising the tax threshold to $190,000 and giving them a tax cut too. I spoke with Ian, a miner from Muswellbrook, who told me that this is a far more equitable outcome. Ian earns more than $170,000 a year and still gets a tax cut, but his children, who are in the childcare and service industries, get a far better deal on their tax.

Those opposite love a good scare campaign. It's the only policy they can come up with. We hear them running around like Chicken Little, telling everyone the sky is falling in, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The advice from Treasury is clear: our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressure, because they are broadly revenue neutral. With the continuing fall of the inflation rate, Treasury are clear that our tax plan will not impact their forecast for inflation to fall to the target band.

Australians are under pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges they are facing, but those opposite have backflipped on what they will do for struggling Australians. Why are they standing in the way of bigger tax cuts for Middle Australia? We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying they would roll back these changes, meaning that 63,000 people in the Hunter electorate would not get a tax cut and would pay more tax under the Liberals and Nationals. Think about that for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. Their plan is to tell those who are struggling that, if the Liberals and Nationals are elected, the relief that will be delivered from 1 July this year will be taken away and given to those people on $200,000 a year or more. How is that fair? The Liberals and Nationals are addicted to opposing cost-of-living relief. The only word they seem to know is 'no'.

The stage 3 tax cuts represent a transformative step forward for our nation, a step towards a future of opportunity, prosperity and fairness. By empowering individuals, stimulating economic activity and promoting equality within our tax system, these cuts lay the foundation for a stronger, more resilient Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. I'm amazed when I come into this place and listen to members opposite talk about the cost of living. It seems that they have finally awoken from their political slumber to realise that actually Australians are hurting right now. For 20 months this government has been distracted by so many other different things, and it has failed, at every point and every level, to address the cost-of-living issues that we've been talking about—that is, until the Prime Minister realised and said: 'I've got a problem here. I need to do something about this.'

It has taken this government 20 months to come up with something meaningful—albeit, for the average punter, we're talking about a tax reduction of $15 a week. I look at how much the average Australian family's costs have increased in the period since this government came to power, the extraordinary costs that the average family is now enduring. Rents are sky-high. We've seen 12 interest rate rises. The average mortgage holder in this country is now paying $24,000 more than they were under the coalition government, and that's after tax. We often don't seem to remember or recognise that it's after tax. Think about the average Australian family that is often, sadly, living from hand to mouth. Now, if they've got a mortgage, they are paying an additional $24,000 after tax. Their electricity bill has gone through the roof—far from the $275 reduction under Labor that the Prime Minister promised, a claim he has not repeated once since the election.

Rents have gone up because most landlords have a mortgage. If their mortgage goes up, rents will go up. Rents have gone up exponentially because this government is introducing over 1.5 million immigrants to this country, with no plan on where these people are going to work or live. That is having unbelievably drastic consequences for housing pressures. I am getting people contacting my office every day—I had another one today—with some really sad stories about young people and old people who can't find a house. A gentleman's mum contacted my office yesterday and said her son has five days until he's evicted and he's got nowhere to go. There is story after story after story.

This government talks big about housing. At the same time it's just pulled $160 million in funding from the Mooloolah River interchange in my electorate. Over a hundred houses were demolished to make way for the Mooloolah River interchange. Now, because of this government's slashing of infrastructure spending, the people who were living in over a hundred demolished houses may be homeless. Do the maths. On average, around two and a half people live in a house. I don't know where they've gone. Trying to find a house on the Sunshine Coast is virtually impossible.

This government is only now talking the big talk about cost of living because this Prime Minister realised that he was in trouble with the defeat at the referendum and because of the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are feeling. During the 90-second statements every single one of those opposite came in here and talked about the cost of living. When was the last time government members opposite talked about the cost of living until very recently? The government has the opposition's support for this bill because we are a party that supports lower taxes and smaller government.

They're slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves, on the backs of Australians that have never done it so hard. I was a carpenter in the 1980s in the 'recession that we had to have'—Paul Keating's recession. I've seen tough times as a carpenter. But although interest rates climbed to 18 per cent back then, there are more people doing it hard now. Perhaps it's because of my job that I'm exposed to people's difficulties. It doesn't matter where I go.

I opened Gateway Care's new facilities in Caloundra just before Christmas. When we were in government, we provided them with some funding to build a new shed. Gateway Care is like a Foodbank for the Sunshine Coast. They told me that they have got people turning up to Gateway Care who work; both mum and dad work. They might drive nice cars, but they are in real strife because they cannot make ends meet. When you look at those figures that I talked about earlier—an additional $24,000 for the average punter with the average mortgage, after tax—where can the average mum and dad find that sort of money? They can't. A lot of families saved up a lot of money during COVID, so a lot of those savings are being exhausted, but, equally, there are a lot of families in which mums and dads are having to go back and get a second job and, in some cases, a third job. For those members opposite to come in here and be slapping themselves on the back about how good this government purports to be, it is a direct affront to the pain and the suffering that Australians across this country are feeling, particularly in regional Queensland—places like where you live and I live, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There are things in this bill which the government supports. We support the lower tax bracket reducing down to 16 cents. That's a good thing. But, when it comes down to trying to ease the cost of living, I know that at 10 minutes to six—and it's 10 minutes to five back home—people will be driving to and from sport or will be just about to drive home from work or maybe from one job to the next job because they have to work two jobs, or maybe they're not taking their kids to sport, because they can't afford for their kids to do sport any more. Australians are doing it tough, and it grates on each and every single one of them to hear the government come in here and pat themselves on the back.

The reality is that the stage 3 tax cuts that we legislated when we were in government were supported by those members opposite, the government, when they were in opposition. They supported those changes. But now there's a Dunkley by-election and now the Prime Minister is under pressure as a result of his appalling leadership during the referendum. Surely his backbench was feeding information to him. 'Boss, we've got a real problem here. There are a lot of people out there hurting. You've got to do something.' As a result of the sad passing of Peta Murphy, we have the by-election in Dunkley. This by-election will be a test for this Prime Minister's leadership. He knows that as well as anybody. The reality is that's why these new tax cuts were born.

On more than a hundred occasions, this Prime Minister told us that this government was not going to change the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. 'My word is my bond,' he said. They told us they weren't going to change the franking credits. They told us they weren't going to make any changes to superannuation. Now they're telling us: 'Oh, there will be no changes to negative gearing. There will be no changes to the capital gains tax offsets.' Well, when Australians hear the Prime Minister speak, they have every single right to wonder whether what he is saying is truthful. There are only so many times you can break faith with the Australian people before the Australian people will call you out.

At least the member for Maribyrnong, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, ran at the 2019 election with, it has to be said, a very upfront approach to taxation policies and what Labor were going to do. We fought him on that, and the Australian people spoke very loudly, but at least the member for Maribyrnong had the intestinal fortitude to be honest and to nail his colours to the mast. This Prime Minister went to the 2022 election making numerous commitments from which he has since backtracked. Labor has gone against those commitments, and now Australians are wondering whether the person in the Lodge is someone who they can trust. That is a sad state of affairs.

Politicians cop a bad rap no matter what, doesn't matter what party is in government, but when the Prime Minister of the land stands up and says, 'You can trust me on this'—says it on over 100 occasions: 'We don't plan on making any changes,' and, 'My word is my bond'—Australians have a reasonable expectation that things will not change. When you break that bond, Australians are rightly able to question everything that comes out of that person's lips thereafter, and that person is the Prime Minister of this country.

The Liberal-National coalition has always stood for smaller government. It has always stood for lower taxes. For those opposite to try and mount some sort of an argument that we're not supporting these changes is clearly incorrect. It's manufacturing. At the end of the day, this bill will be supported by the coalition. That will be reflected in the votes and tallies. I look forward to making a further contribution later.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government wants Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. That's why we are delivering a tax cut to every Australian who pays income tax and a bigger benefit to 84 per cent of Australians. I know that many Australians are doing it tough at the moment. The pandemic, the global economic downturn and two international conflicts have had far-reaching impacts on our economy here in Australia, and Australians, especially low- and middle-income earners, are under pressure. We've been tackling the most pressing challenges faced by Australians while also making responsible choices in the long-term interests of our country.

We're providing responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflationary pressures. That's why we have been delivering $23 billion in cost-of-living relief across child care, TAFE, Medicare, cheaper medicines, energy bill relief, affordable homes and paid parental leave. We're investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive, allowing 11.6 million Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We're reducing the cost of medicine by up to half for at least six million Australians. We're committing up to $3 billion on electricity bill relief to take pressure off more than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. As a result, power bills are lower than they otherwise would have been. And, importantly, as Australian Bureau of Statistics data has confirmed, the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief has shaved 0.5 per cent off inflation. We've also increased the base rate of the JobSeeker payment and the youth allowance, and we've committed $1.9 billion to expand eligibility of single parent payments.

But we know more needs to be done. That's why from 1 July this year, through this bill, we will be delivering a tax cut to every taxpayer in Australia. Our policy will mean that Middle Australia will receive bigger tax cuts to help with cost-of-living pressures. We've made the hard choice to change our position to deliver these tax cuts. We're introducing these changes because we recognise the economic realities of 2024. We recognise that Australians are under pressure and deserve a plan that responds to the challenges they are facing. When the former government's tax plan was legislated five years ago, the world was a very different place. Their plan was legislated before a once-in-100-years pandemic, before higher interest rates driven by persistent international inflation and before two global conflicts and the ensuing global economic uncertainty. All of this put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressure. We recognise that, when circumstances change, changing policy is the right thing to do.

The tax cuts will have a real tangible difference for 13.6 million taxpaying Australians, and these tax cuts will make a difference to 2.9 million more people than would have benefited from the five-year-old Morrison tax plan. We want people to earn more, and we want them to keep more of what they earn. In my electorate in Melbourne's west, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. Eighty-four thousand people in my electorate will get a tax cut. Seventy thousand people—that's almost 84 per cent of people in my electorate—will get a bigger tax cut. And 5.8 million women, 90 per cent of women taxpayers, will now receive a bigger tax cut. Ninety-eight per cent of teachers, 97 per cent of truckies, 96 per cent of cleaners, 91 per cent of police officers and 91 per cent of mechanics will get a bigger tax cut. More than 90 per cent of all Australians under 35 will receive a bigger tax cut. Under our plans, an early childhood educator who earns $69,000 a year will receive an additional $1,404 as a tax cut. Under the Morrison plan, they would have received nothing—not a cent.

These reforms make our tax system more progressive and more fair, and our plan returns bracket creep for all taxpayers and does more to reduce the impact on those who are most burdened by it. By dropping the two tax rates and lifting the two thresholds, we're giving everyone a tax cut and providing $359 billion in help with the cost of living. We are returning the most bracket creep to where we can do the most good in Middle Australia. In spite of the mendacious lines being run by those opposite, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less of their income in tax over the next decade. And, as identified by the Grattan Institute, the median taxpayer is still better off after 10 years. They found that a typical taxpayer, someone earning around $59,000, will pay cumulatively $8,040 less in tax over the next decade.

Those opposite don't like this bill. You only have to listen to their speeches to see how much this bill irritates them. The opposition leader would rather a fight than a fix. Listening to those opposite contort themselves over this bill to find a way to be outraged by it while also supporting it has really been something to behold. It's been a collective credibility bonfire. Credibility is an impediment to career progression on the opposition frontbench. The deputy Liberal leader understands this better than anyone. She has put in a really strong performance in destroying her credibility in her current role. She has had strong opposition from the shadow Treasurer, who labelled these tax cuts for all Australians as 'Marxism', before saying that he would vote for them. It takes a lot to be less credible than that, but the deputy Liberal leader has been putting in the work. As an MP who utterly capitulated on her former positions on live exports and on Palestine, the deputy leader has now added tax cuts to the bonfire of her policy credibility. When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:

Well this is our position. This is absolutely our position …

Except, according to the Leader of the Opposition, it isn't. Well, it's hard to know what their position is. They've opposed it. They've said they'll roll it back. They've said they'll amend it. They've said they'll support it. They've said they'll take a different policy to the next election. You don't need to believe in numerology to see that this doesn't add up.

But, in their negativity, they reveal their true priorities. This week the member for Bowman stood up in this place, as a representative example of the kinds of contributions we've heard in this debate, to suggest that this bill meant that the government were 'killers of aspirations'. Whose aspirations was he talking about when he said this? He went on:

… what about the next generation of Australians, the next generation of aspirants … who aspire to one day own an investment property? Is the government proposing to kill off their aspiration to do so?

He really seems to think that the only aspirational people in this country are those who wish to own an investment property.

We are aspirational for all Australians, no matter who you are or where you come from. The people in my community in Melbourne's west are aspirational too. There is aspiration in every corner of my electorate. There are people working hard now to aspire to something better in the future for themselves and their family, right up and down the income ladder. People in Melbourne's west work hard every day to look after their family and their community. They are aspirational, working hard now and aspiring to something better for themselves and their family.

When I think of aspirational Australians, I think of Vietnamese Australian manufacturing workers in my electorate, working hard for decades—I think of one person in particular, working hard so that his daughter could get the grades she needed to become a doctor. I think of an Indian Australian truck driver, working hard, putting in the overtime to save the money that he needs to start his own business. I think of the Afghan Australian refugee working hard in a logistics job so that his six-year-old daughter could attend school for the very first time ever. I think of the Chinese Australian mum who has been able to continue with her career progression because of our cheaper child care reforms and paid parental leave.

If someone's aspiration is to buy an investment property, good luck to them. There's nothing wrong with that. That's great. But, if you're an MP in this House and that's the only aspiration that you can see, you're selling our country short; you're selling Australians short. Parents who are sacrificing everything to give their children the very best future they possibly can all deserve a tax cut, and they'll get one, thanks to the Albanese government, because we are delivering a tax cut to all Australians. We're delivering cost-of-living relief, no matter who you are or what you do. This is a tax cut right up and down the income ladder, which will fuel the aspirations of everyone, not only in my community but across Australia. It's part of an economic strategy that deals with the challenges of the present, while also preparing our nation to succeed in the future.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My earliest memory of Australian politics is 5 March 1983. I was 10 years old. Laura Branigan, Marvin Gaye, Kenny Rogers and Sheena Easton were in the top 10 playing on 3XY. I should've been in my room, of course, dancing around to 'Billie Jean' at the time, but it's fair to say that my affection for watching election results came to life very early. I am the only child of a single parent, and that election night in 1983 meant a great deal for my single parent and for what she could or could not do for herself and for me. My single parent, my mum, was at that time a doctor—a cardiothoracic surgeon, to be precise, a qualification that took her the better part of 20 years to acquire, with undergraduate study in medicine and science over seven years, five years of general surgical training and two years as a specialist fellow training at the Alfred, followed by two years at the Mass General in Boston and six months at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto in Canada, before she brought her skills back home to Australia and had me.

Having me, of course, was a huge risk for a woman who had just embarked on a career surrounded by men with not too much expectation of women being around, and, in particular, not forthright, bloody smart women like my mother coming into their midst. As I have explained elsewhere, in my first speech to this place, she went to extraordinary lengths to make sure I was safe and fed while she went back to work. My mum took just two weeks off when she had me, not because she was desperate to get back to work—even though my mother is the very definition of a careerist woman. She went back to work because she had to. Being self-employed, as most specialist surgeons are, she knew that no work equals no money.

So mum picked up the plumbing tools, as she would so often describe her surgical instruments, a week or so postpartum and went back to the operating theatre and the hospital wards. She would take me with her on the weekends to visit the patients on Saturdays and Sundays, and in the school holidays I would sit in her consulting suite and, in truly terrible handwriting, take patients' histories. In hindsight, I thank them for their patience, as I would interrogate their smoking and drinking habits and their next of kin and diligently write down their six-digit phone numbers.

When I got a bit older, sometimes her team would let me into the operating theatre. Fully dressed up in all the garb you need, I would stand on a small ladder and peer over the shoulders of the doctors and nurses and see their remarkable skill at work, with the human form converted into science and art. The patients would wake up an hour or so later in recovery and, like a cheery oompa-loompa, I would greet them with glee. It was my job to tell mum that they were awake so she could go in and check on how they were faring. More than once, I think, some went back to sleep, or maybe just passed out, wondering if they'd been in a dream where the doctors had all converted into midgets.

But on the night of 5 March 1983 my mum looked ashen. I couldn't understand why. 'Mum, why don't you look happy?' As the Hawke landslide rolled in, mum quietly said: 'It'll be okay. It's just going to be harder for me to send you to school now.' School was, of course, my world, my safe space, my joy, my mates, my curiosity and a fun park for a galloping brain, but it was also my parent—the parent Mum could not always be because, at least it felt this way at the time, her patients always came first. Every night after school she would spend hour after hour talking on the phone to the patients, their families, other doctors, oncologists and physicians. And words that would never normally appear in a 10-year-old's vocabulary, like adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, mesothelioma—I knew them all, and I knew exactly which words to listen out for to work out whether the conversation she was about to start on the phone after dinner was going to be a difficult one or an optimistic one.

You see, my mother did medicine the hard way. She charged patients who were in tough times the Medicare rebate, and sometimes not at all. She frowned on colleagues who charged the AMA rates. She watched her earnings carefully, and I realised sometime later that she did this so that she was able to send me to a good school—a great school—that did some of the parenting she could not always be available to do so that, when she couldn't be there to pick me up from school after play practice, debating or netball, which, frankly, was more often than not, someone would make sure I wasn't forgotten and got home.

Don't get me wrong—I should be fair—Liberal to the bootstraps, my mum loved Hawkey. There was something about his large, larrikin and articulate brilliance that cheered her greatly. But that night her pale face was all about what it meant for her ability to make ends meet and, specifically, it was all about Labor's approach to taxation policy. So, when I come to this place and talk about Labor's approach to taxation policy and its impact on aspiration, you know it comes from a little kid looking at her mother's face, thinking, 'Seriously? Could you work any harder?'

Australia is founded on aspiration. Sure, many were compelled to come here, but most came here willingly for a better chance for them and their families to get ahead in ways they could not in the country where they started out. It's what makes us so successful: having a go and taking a risk. I see that spirit across my electorate of Flinders every day—the small business, independent contractor and tradie heaven that Flinders is. We live well, surrounded by the sand, the hills and the sea, but people work their guts out. I see it every day.

People in Flinders still want to own a home. It's still a common aspiration. Roughly 40 per cent of my electorate own their home, 34 per cent have mortgages and about 20 per cent rent. High rates of home ownership have excellent outcomes for social cohesion and continuity when it comes to community participation. It's one of the reasons we have thriving footy clubs like the Somerville Junior Football Club. It's one of the reasons we have well-loved and much-used men's sheds, like the one I visited in Blairgowrie just before Christmas. It's why our rotary clubs are full and fantastic, as demonstrated by the Rotary Club of Mt Martha on Australia Day, and also in their generous and constant reach and assistance across the peninsula. Don't get me started on my local Probus clubs, where retired leaders across the spectrum of Australian industry share their wisdom on contemporary issues. I thank the Probus Club of Main Ridge for their recent invitation to talk about social media. But with each day the aspiration of home ownership in my electorate gets harder to realise.

On 3 February the Herald Sun published a table, based on PropTrack data, setting out what you need to earn to be able to buy a house or unit in Flinders, assuming a 20 per cent deposit, which is what you need to avoid mortgage lenders insurance, and a 6.2 per cent interest rate, even though at present some interest rates are as high as nine per cent. To buy a house in Somerville you need to earn $159,000 a year. To buy a house in Crib Point or Tyabb you need to earn $152,000 a year. To buy a house in Capel Sound you need to earn $144,000 a year. To buy a house in Hastings you need to earn $137,000 a year. These are entry-point homes in my electorate of Flinders. If you want to buy in McCrae, Mornington, Mt Martha, Safety Beach or Rye, you have to earn more than $200,000 a year. Families striving to buy or pay down a mortgage in Crib Point or Capel Sound are not 'the rich' or 'the top end', as Labor's demonisation of this demographic would have you believe. They are working their butts off making ends meet, and yet they are exactly the people Labor will tell you aren't deserving of keeping their own money in their own pocket to use as they see fit.

I am so tired of hearing about Labor's tax cuts. They're all we've heard about for two weeks. But these aren't Labor's tax cuts; they're the coalition's tax cuts with some crafty, self-serving, ideological class warfare bait and switch at the last minute, designed to win a by-election in my neighbouring electorate of Dunkley: 'Here's the sugar pill on 1 July. Ignore my broken promises, all 100 of them, to deliver the stage 3 tax cuts in full. Ignore all my broken promises on energy bills, where I told you you'd get a $275 discount. Ignore my promise back in 2018 to electrify the rail line to Baxter.' Let me read you the now Prime Minister's press release dated 31 July 2018—bless him, because it's still on his website—in which Anthony Albanese, as shadow minister for infrastructure, said:

A … Labor Government will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade, building on the significant investment the Andrews Labor Government has made in Frankston infrastructure.

Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point Line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.

In 2016, Federal Labor committed funding for a business case to ensure the project could proceed as soon as possible upon the election of a Federal Labor Government.

Hmm.

Currently thousands of Dunkley and Peninsula residents drive and park at Frankston, Kananook or Seaford stations because the Metro line service ends at Frankston.

A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options.

It sounds great, but the Prime Minister cancelled funding for this project—all $225 million that the coalition had provided for it back in budgets past—after his 90-day review, which then became a 200-day review, and he snatched $300 million out of infrastructure from the Mornington Peninsula to pad highways somewhere around the current infrastructure minister's electorate of Ballarat.

A couple of weeks ago, I joined the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, together with our sensational candidate for the by-election in Dunkley, Nathan Conroy, to announce a future coalition government would provide up to $900 million to electrify the rail line and reduce parking congestion around Frankston. It will also provide study and work opportunities for my residents in Baxter and, in time, further down the Stony Point line. Here we are fixing yet another broken Albanese government promise, like the hundred promises he made before to keep the stage 3 tax cuts in full.

Today on the front page of the Australian we read that Labor's deception will hit the middle ground, not the super-rich or the top end as the Prime Minister would like you to think the tradies, subbies, landscapers and small-business families in my electorate are. Patrick Commins and Geoff Chambers write on the front page of the Australian today:

Sparkies, paramedics, police officers and accountants will be long-term losers under Labor's stage three tax changes, as a major credit rating agency says Anthony Albanese's revamped tax cuts will likely be more inflationary than Scott Morrison's original plan.

Under Labor's tax changes, electricians, school principals, cops, train drivers and others will pay more tax under the proposed legislation in a decade, analysis by The Australian has revealed.

Bigger tax cuts for middle-income earners promoted by the Prime Minister and Jim Chalmers are projected to erode over time as bracket creep captures more Australians under a higher 37c tax rate. In 10 years, Australians earning the equivalent of more than $104,000 today will be worse off under Labor's redistribution of the tax relief.

Oh, dear. The truth comes out again.

Labor deceived the Australian people when it went to the election in May 2022 with a suite of what can only be called Liberal-lite propositions. As we have seen over the last year, can you trust Labor on energy policy? You cannot. As we have seen over the last few months, can you trust Labor on defence, national security or community safety? No, you cannot. As we will see with this bill today, can you trust them on taxation policy? No, you cannot.

Add to that the avalanche of industrial relations and employment changes designed to stifle innovation, risk-taking, growth and productivity in the small- and medium-business sector. In this place, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony 'Bring Back the Beeper' Burke, is single-handedly, although encouraged and abetted by his union masters, strangling the lifeblood of Australia's small-business sector, crushing ambition and the great Australian courage in having a go and creating an opportunity for others.

The opposition will not oppose this bill. After all, without the opposition and its nine-year term of careful management of the Australian economy, there would be no tax cuts today. I can't remember the last time Labor delivered tax cuts. I do vaguely remember Prime Minister Paul Keating reassuring the Australian people before the 1993 election that the tax cuts he promised weren't just a promise; they were the law—l-a-w law. But then, in what appears to be a crafty but now customary switcheroo for the Australian Labor Party, Keating went off to the National Press Club after the election and told everyone that he'd had another think and that it couldn't be done anymore. Does that sound familiar? The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, equally said he had a mandate for this change to the legislated tax cuts programmed by the coalition. And how did he get the renewed mandate? He went down to the National Press Club. Well, blow me down. If you can just fundamentally break a contract with the Australian people by going to the Press Club, why didn't anyone tell us? Last time we decided to change taxation policy, we gave the electorate the chance to throw us out both at the 1998 election, at which the proposed GST introduction and the choice the Australian public had were made clear to them, and then immediately afterwards at the 2001 election. That is transparency, that is accountability, and in that the Australian Labor Party has a lot to learn.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I am very pleased to be speaking on this very important bill. It is very important because this bill means that all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July this year. Of course, this is on top of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief, which is already being delivered right across the country in the form of cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, building more social and affordable homes, and increasing rent assistance. These, combined with the tax cuts, are vitally important.

These tax cuts mean, for example, that in my electorate on the New South Wales North Coast every taxpayer will receive a tax cut this year. In fact, 71,000 taxpayers in Richmond will receive that tax cut, with the average tax cut being $1,384. I will just put in perspective what our tax cuts are delivering compared to what we saw previously with the Liberals and Nationals. Under our plan, under these new tax cuts, 61,000 residents in my electorate will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have otherwise under the Liberals and Nationals. That is a huge amount for my electorate, and what a difference it will make for people. Certainly there has been a very positive response from my community in terms of the fact that Labor is delivering these tax cuts for so many people across the community.

Our tax cuts are very good for Middle Australia, good for working families, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. The tax cuts will make a real difference for those 13.6 million taxpayers who will be receiving that tax cut—2.9 million more than would have benefited under the previous government's plans. That means 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut, and it means that 5.8 million women will receive a bigger tax cut. People such as nurses, teachers and police are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut.

I want to discuss this in the context of Labor's strong support for workers and improving working conditions right across the board. Whether it's job security or working conditions, it is only Labor that consistently delivers this support. Particularly, our right-to-disconnect laws are vitally important for workers across the country, and that is especially true for police and emergency service personnel. I am a former frontline police officer, and I know how important it is for police to have really good working conditions in place, especially the right to disconnect.

What are we seeing? We are seeing the opposition leader opposing it and claiming that he will repeal it. We finally see an election policy from the Liberals and Nationals, and what is it? They're going to repeal all these laws that create better working conditions for Australians, including the right to disconnect. That's really appalling when it comes to police officers. I can tell you, as a former police officer, how important it is to have those working conditions in place to make sure that police have that work-life balance. Our police do an amazing job under often very difficult circumstances, and it is Labor who backs them.

It really shows how out of touch the opposition leader is that he wants to repeal these laws. It is quite disturbing and appalling. Yesterday we saw the Police Federation of Australia come out and condemn the opposition for their stance. In fact, they have said that the opposition's measures are disrespectful and wrong. I stand with the Police Federation of Australia and I stand with all police officers. Indeed, many of the former police colleagues I have spoken to also condemn the opposition leader for wanting to take away important workplace rules. As I said, our police work very hard, and Labor delivers for them, whether it's their working conditions or their tax cuts. For example, a police officer on $110,000 a year will now get a tax cut of $2,400 under Labor. We certainly stand with our police forces, but the opposition leader doesn't, and he is certainly out of touch.

In terms of tax cuts, parents, particularly those with young children, will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's tax cut changes through increases to their take-home pay. I want to speak about what a positive impact this will particularly have for women. I am very proud to represent a government that is absolutely committed to gender equality. First and foremost, let me emphasise our government's resolute dedication to take real action on gender equality. We understand that achieving true equality requires more than just words; it demands concrete steps to achieve that real change. Our commitment to gender equality is directly reflected in these tax cuts, because every single taxpaying woman in this country will receive a tax cut. Now, thanks to this government, 90 per cent of taxpaying women will receive an even bigger tax cut, and that certainly will make a huge difference. These targeted measures are essential in narrowing the gender pay gap and promoting economic equality.

As I've said, Labor's new tax plan is part of a suite of cost-of-living relief for women. Over our past two budgets we've made significant investments to support women across various sectors and right across the board, through investment in child care, paid parental leave, women's safety, family law, workplace safety, women's health and fair wages. We have placed women at the centre of our economic agenda, whether it be through the Jobs and Skills Summit, the employment white paper or recommendations from our Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, along with analysis contained in the white paper, integral to developing our national strategy to achieve gender equality. By investing in women's education, training and entrepreneurship, we're not only fostering economic growth we're creating a much more equitable society for all. As a government we are committed to leading the charge and change and creating a future where every individual—everyone, regardless of gender—has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. It is through this commitment to real change that we can do that.

As I said, these tax cuts have widespread benefits. Under the proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a larger tax cut. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part time. Someone on the average wage in Australia, which is around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, which is more than double what they would have received under the Liberals and Nationals. This is particularly important for those living in regional and rural Australia. As we know, people in these communities earn less than people in the city, so it makes a huge difference percentage-wise for people living in regional areas like mine and throughout regional and rural Australia. Labor are always very cognisant of making sure we are delivering for people in country Australia. We know how important that is.

These tax cuts will make a huge difference, and our changes will also deliver a better, more progressive tax system. By dropping two tax rates and lifting two thresholds, we're giving everyone a tax cut and providing a significant amount of help right across the board. The Albanese Labor government are introducing these changes because we recognise the economic realities of 2024. Australians are under real pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges they are facing every day.

I'm sure we all agree that five years ago, when the coalition initially legislated these stage 3 tax cuts, we were in a very different place. That was before the pandemic, before persistent inflation, before higher interest rates, before global conflicts and before global uncertainty. All of those factors have put Australians under much more sustained cost-of-living pressures. From talking to people, we know the cost-of-living pressures they are experiencing. When circumstances change, changing policy is the responsible thing to do to provide support to people. Cutting taxes is one measure that can help provide cost-of-living relief.

We are getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers. Also, really importantly, we are providing cost-of-living relief in the form of energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, more income support and the biggest boost to rental assistance in 30 years. We spent more than $20 billion on that cost-of-living measures package. We are providing this cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures, while laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy.

This bill is all about delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer and more tax relief for people to help with cost-of-living pressures. We've heard a measure of negativity from all the opposition speakers. They don't like our changes. They'd prefer wages to be lower. We know that Liberals and Nationals want Australians to work more for less money. We don't. We want to assist them by giving them tax cuts and ensuring they've got cost-of-living relief because, in comparison to the Liberals and Nationals, Labor are absolutely committed to providing support for Australians through tax cuts and cost-of-living relief.

In conclusion, I am very proud to be speaking on this bill because it will have a real impact and deliver real assistance to people by providing tax cuts right across the country. It will be particularly good for people in regional and rural Australia and will have a major impact on and provide benefits to women in our society. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. 'My word is my bond.' We've all heard this statement and we all know who said it. But it has now come to light that this is not the case. The Prime Minister has gone back on his word, changed his mind and flip-flopped again. As a matter of fact, he's done more flip-flops than a Moscow circus and told more stories—tall stories, I might add—than Charles Dickens.

The government asked Treasury to look at some options, including revising stage 3 tax cuts, on 11 December. But, following that, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position, including when the Prime Minister said, 'We are not reconsidering that position.' What a fibber. But we're getting used to this. We're getting used to the tall stories and the deceit from the other side. What about the reduction of $275 in power prices that was promised before the election? This wasn't a slip of the tongue by the Prime Minister. He stated this 97 times. So we're getting used to the Prime Minister just saying whatever he feels like whenever he feels like it.

But what I'm really concerned about is this: What is this teaching our younger generation? What example does that set? How hard is this for the teachers who are saying: 'Boys and girls, you must tell the truth. Boys and girls, do the right thing'? They'd be thinking, 'Why do I have to do that, when we have an example like our Prime Minister?' who, let's face it, is very, very careless with the truth.

'No-one will be left behind.' That's another broken promise, because everyone today in Australia is worse off under this Labor government. Australians are living in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. On this side of the House, we've been talking about the dire situation for Australian families for months, but it seems the penny has only just dropped for the Albanese Labor government. Now they've finally caught up, but they're not going to do anything about it till July. The Australian people can't wait. They need help now.

I realise the Prime Minister was totally focused on his referendum, a referendum that was designed to divide the nation on the basis of race—and what happened? A $450 million spend of taxpayers' money on the failed referendum. Australians have seen their living standards collapse by 8.6 per cent, or $8,000, under this hapless Albanese Labor government. If you have a mortgage, it's a lot more than that. Everything has been going up under Labor, including power prices. What they tried to do with power prices clearly didn't work. Power prices are actually increasing. Interest rates have been increasing, increasing, increasing. The Albanese Labor government seem to blame everyone else. They tried to blame Putin. They tried to blame the invasion of Ukraine. They try to blame anything they can think of. It's a wonder they're not blaming lightning strikes in Zimbabwe! But what is really happening here is that Labor are enhancing the inflation. They've spent another $209 billion that they've added into this economy. While they're telling you at home to pull your belt in and do the right thing and be conservative in your household, they're just spraying it around willy-nilly—$209 billion extra.

Grocery prices have gone up on their watch by nearly 10 per cent, and fruit and veggie prices have gone through the roof. That's why the Nationals demanded that the ACCC do an inquiry into what farmers are receiving at the farm gate versus what the big supermarkets—Coles, Woolworths, IGA—are selling it for. This was very sensible policy to thresh out, because what happens in a supply-and-demand situation when the supermarkets charge too much? People can't afford to buy something. It sits on the shelf. Then farmers do not get a return. But, if we do this and actually keep our farmers farming and give them the right return on their investment, they will then be able to grow more and stay in business longer, and the average taxpayer will end up better off at the check-out.

These tax changes are a political response from the government, not a cost-of-living response. This is more about the Dunkley by-election than a genuine tax reform, but Australians can see through this deceitful Prime Minister. An analysis done by the Australian has revealed that, under Labor's tax changes, many essential workers will pay more under the proposed legislation in the next 10 years. Those who are at risk of having less money in their pockets are electricians, school principals, paramedics, police officers, train and tram drivers, engineers, construction managers—and the list goes on. Sparkies, paramedics, police officers and more will be long-term losers under Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. As a major credit rating agency says, 'Anthony Albanese's revamped tax cuts will more likely be inflationary than the original plan. The proposed tax cuts will leave essential workers worse off in the future as their average tax rates push higher and bracket creep captures more Australians.'

Last week we heard from the Treasurer that these changes will mean more relief for workers to help with the cost of living. The truckies, the nurses and the police officers will get a bigger tax cut. What the Treasurer forgot to mention was that these benefits will be temporary and our essential frontline workers will lose out in the long run. By 2034—just 10 years away—66 professions that are reportedly going to benefit from these proposed tax cuts will be worse off and paying more under Labor's ill-thought-out changes. This is less about genuine tax reform and more about short-term political tactics. A report released by SMP Global said the Labor government's proposed tax cuts could be more inflationary than the initial coalition government's proposed stage 3 tax cuts.

If the Albanese government is true in its intention to help Australians, why did they abolish the low- and middle-income tax offset? This tax offset, which delivered a tax break of up to $1,500 for people earning up to $126,000, was quietly stopped by this tricky Albanese Labor government in June 2022. But many people didn't realise this and the massive impact it may have on their home budget—until they receive their 2022-2023 tax refund, which will either be drastically smaller or disappear altogether, or they'll be lumped with a tax bill. And this is right in the middle of a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis.

The low- and middle-income tax offset did exactly what it was called. It provided a tax offset for low- or middle-income earners: anyone with a taxable income of $126,000 or less. This offset varied depending on your income. Let me put it in simple terms. Earners of less than $37,000 received $675. For earners of between $37,001 and $48,000, the offset increased steadily up to $1,500. Earners of income between $48,001 and $90,000 received the full $1,500, and gradually this became less, with no offset at the end, at $126,000. Again I ask the question: if the Albanese Labor government want the income earner to keep more, why would they be abolishing something that is designed specifically for the low- and middle-income earners?

The coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, which is why we will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c. We are the party of lower taxes. We are the party of business. We are the party that can manage money. My fundamental belief is that in this country you should be able to earn a quid and, more importantly, keep a quid. We support small business. Small business is the backbone of the nation. When you're in small business and you finish your day and sit down with maybe a beer or a wine, or, if you're fortunate enough, a Bundy and Coke, you can say, 'Hey, we did all right today, so let's expand our business, or let's put someone else on.' That's how wealth is created in this country.

The coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that will keep the stage 3 tax cuts reform. It will be a package that will give immediate relief and also pass the long-term test. We are committed to fighting bracket creep. We are the party of aspiration, because, when there is incentive, people will work hard and strive to accomplish their best. We, on this side of the House, understand that hard work supports a strong economy, and we want every Australian to get ahead. But what we all know, and what everybody knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who tells porky pies. I will finish with a poem that best sums up the Prime Minister, and I will respect the parliament and the parliamentary procedure with what I say here. The poem is quite simple. 'Untruther, untruther, pants on fire.'

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In my time in this place, I do not recall a piece of legislation coming before us that has caused so much indecision and vacillation amongst coalition members. In fact, listening to the speeches—and I've listened to quite a few of them—it's clear that they are all over the place with their response to this legislation. The fact is that this is good legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 has the support of the majority of Australians. It is good legislation because it is the right thing to do, and members opposite know that. That is why they are in such confusion.

The reality is that coalition members don't really want to support this legislation, but they know they have to because the Australian people would not forgive them if they didn't. They come into the chamber, trying to justify their support on one hand, while on the other hand looking at how they can criticise it. The reality is that this legislation has the support of the Australian people because 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be better off under Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. Nearly seven in eight taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Nine out of 10 women taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Every taxpayer gets a tax break. That includes those earning less than $45,000, who are probably in the greatest need bracket out there and who would have got nothing under the coalition government's stage 3 tax cuts.

Most importantly, this legislation addresses one of the key features that is debated and discussed in this parliament each and every day, and that is the cost of living, because this legislation provides cost-of-living relief to more families struggling and unable to make ends meet. It goes directly towards addressing one of the issues that we have debated in this place over recent months more than any other. I hear members opposite who come into the chamber and, quite rightly, point out that the cost of living is affecting people in their community. They talk about the hardship that those people are experiencing. But what I don't hear are the solutions for how to deal with those cost-of-living hardships. I simply hear criticism of the government but no meaningful solutions being put on the table.

If they genuinely cared about those people who are doing it tough, perhaps they would come in and propose some solutions and urge the government to take them up or embrace them so that we could, in fact, provide the help that they believe the people out there in the community actually need. It begs the question: if they really don't want to support this legislation—I listened to the last speaker say that there are so many faults with it, that in years to come people will actually be worse off and so on—why are they actually supporting it? Why are they coming into this place and saying, 'We'll support it, but it's terrible legislation'? Really, it's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

The reality is that deep down they know that the Albanese government has responded to the needs of the community and is doing the right thing by modifying the stage 3 tax cuts in the way that it has. What it will mean is that it's not only good for individuals but good for the economy more broadly, and that ultimately flows back to more certainty and security for people throughout Australia. If people are going to get a bigger tax break, they will keep more of the money they earn. If people keep more of the money they earn, it is more likely that they will take on more work and do more hours. It is more likely that they will get involved in employment to a much higher level than they otherwise would because they know that they will keep more of what they earn.

I heard the last speaker talk about small business. Can I say I totally accept that small business throughout Australia is so important. It is important to the individual business owners who, in many cases, have invested their life savings. The services they provide are critical to local communities, and throughout the country small business is probably the single biggest employer if viewed as an industry sector. This will be good for small business, because most of the money that is going back in the form of tax breaks will go to people that are in the greatest need—people who will spend that money on goods and services in their local community. That means that it is money that will go directly into the small businesses in and around the communities where these people live. So this legislation is not only good for individuals but also good for small business and the economic results. Once those small businesses do better, they can remain viable too. They will employ more people. As we all know, small businesses are also the greatest supporters of the local community facilities and sports facilities in and around them, so the whole community benefits because of it.

Under the stage 3 tax cuts that were proposed by the previous government, most of the money would have gone to the top end of earners. That means that that money would very likely have been spent in larger amounts on, perhaps, overseas holidays or luxury goods, which don't give that same level of support to the small businesses that those opposite claim they are so concerned about.

We often talk about the cost of living being blamed on or attributed to the inflationary pressures on providers of goods and services—that is, inflation drives up the cost of living. But that is not always the case. From my observations, some providers of goods and services are simply exploiting the cost-of-living narrative and using it as an excuse to jack up their prices. That also applies to local, state and federal governments, who are also increasing their fees and charges. In some places and at some times, they are doing so to an unreasonable level, because they know they can. They don't operate in a competitive environment, and they simply do so because they're able to.

Of course, there are also businesses that engage in price-gouging. Again, we've heard plenty of comment about that. Can I say it is not just the two major supermarket chains that are doing that; it is happening across the board in so many different areas. I refer to airlines—I'm sure every member in this place will be able to understand where I'm going with this—where airline prices, at times, have been absolutely exorbitant and unnecessarily so. We're seeing it in the banks. I saw today that one of the largest major banks, the CBA, has suggested that its profits will only be some $5 billion. All of the four major banks made record profits last year, yet their fees and charges don't ever seem to come down, nor do their interest charges when the Reserve Bank cash rate moves. They are very quick to put it up but not so quick to bring it back down. They're still making huge profits whilst they cut their services and increase their charges.

Energy retailers are doing exactly the same. We also see it with medical professionals, and consultants and professionals in other areas. They know that people are perhaps in a corner, with no option but to use their service, and they just charge whatever they like. Unfortunately, whether it's someone who's trapped because they have a medical problem and have to see a specialist of some sort or whether it's someone caught up in a bank loan, sometimes people have nowhere else to go and have to wear the unnecessarily high charges that are imposed on them.

We also know that inequality in this country is increasing and has been over the last decade or so. I want to quote from a media release about an Oxfam report from January 2023. I know it is one year old, but the trend in the statistics pretty much explains what is happening right now. The report highlights how the superrich are getting richer at the expense of the world's poor. I'll quote from the release, because there are two or three sentences in it that I think sum up how the world is travelling and show how here in Australia we are falling back even further than other countries with respect to inequality. It says:

The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth—

that is, $42 trillion—

created since 2020—

only a two-year period—

almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world's population

That's one of Oxfam's statements. They also say:

During the past decade, the richest 1 percent had captured around half of all new wealth.

The third quote is:

The report shows that 95 food and energy corporations have more than doubled their profits in 2022.

The last quote, which I believe is the critical one relating to this legislation and inflation more broadly, is:

Excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK.

I'll repeat that: excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK. The point being made by that quote and by the report is that the inflationary pressures are coming from those people who are price gouging in what they are charging. They are making superprofits whilst people struggle, and governments have to fill the gap by providing different kinds of services in order to help the public they represent.

Another quote from the same release is:

The World Bank says we are likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since WW2.

That trend is equally evident in Australia today. When so much wealth in this country is being pocketed by the top 10 per cent of income earners, whilst less than seven per cent of real per adult economic growth goes to the rest of the people, that is absolutely something to worry about. With respect to what has happened over the last decade, it was members opposite who were in government. It wasn't this side of the House who were in office; it was a coalition government that allowed inequality to grow as it has.

The issue of price gouging is obviously of concern, and there are inquiries taking place right now with respect to groceries and the like. Back in 1973, the Whitlam government brought in the Prices Justification Tribunal. That tribunal was subsequently done away with, but it seems to me that there is a good case for something similar being reinstated in this country. All too often I hear concerns from people across my electorate—and I'm sure other members hear the same—about the price gouging going on across a whole range of areas. There is only one way to fix it, and that is to have a proper commission or tribunal in place with the authority to act when price gouging occurs.

In the time I have left I want to respond briefly to some of points made by opposition speakers with respect to this legislation. One of them is bracket creep. I say to members opposite: bracket creep has always been a part of and a problem with the Australian taxation system, and it is a matter that can and should be addressed separately from this legislation. It has nothing to do with the legislation before us in a direct sense. It is something that certainly is worthy of being discussed, but it can be addressed separately. Members talk about bracket creep and the difference it will make in 10 years time, but there's a lot of water to go under the bridge in the next 10 years. I don't have a crystal ball—and neither does anyone else here—as to what might be the case with respect to the tax that's being paid then.

The other issue is that real wages have fallen, and I've heard members talk about that. Again, what did members opposite do when they were in government to support wage growth in this country? Absolutely nothing. Wages stagnated under their watch. In fact, I have never heard any member opposite come in and talk about increasing and improving wages for workers throughout this country. I've heard them talking about the low-income tax offset that was brought in by their government and how we could have continued it. It was never intended to continue past 2022. Their government brought it in as a short-term measure, and we simply applied that policy when Labor came to office. The last thing I will talk about is aspiration. How insulting is it to suggest that people on low incomes do not have aspiration and that it's only people on high incomes who do?

This is good legislation. It complements other measures that this government has brought in to try and help with cost of living, such as cheaper child care, tripling the GP bulk-billing incentive, cheaper medicines, energy bill relief, rent assistance and so on. It's good legislation. That's why members opposite are supporting it, and that's why the Australian public are supporting it even more strongly.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin, who raised a couple of points that I'll touch on at the start. Firstly, he mentioned the low- and middle-income tax offset, which, yes, was a temporary measure that was brought in by the previous coalition government during times of extreme uncertainty and financial stress for many people in the middle of the COVID pandemic. It did have a sunset clause, but it is up to governments to look at the situation and review whether such sunset clauses are appropriate. Last year, when inflation was running rampant and cost of living was really starting to bite households across the country, all we heard the government talk about was the Voice. We didn't hear them mention the low- and middle-income tax offset once. It would have been a very simple thing for the Treasurer, in his budget, to have a look at the situation and the cost-of-living squeeze that Australian families were under and to extend the low- and middle-income tax offset for an undefined period until we came out at the other side of this current financial crisis. Thank you, Member for Makin, for raising the low- and middle-income tax offset. I don't think it's been aired and ventilated enough during this debate.

I stand today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It's in my DNA that lower taxes are better for everybody in this nation, whether they be low-income earners or high-income earners. The more money can be left in the pay packets of Australian workers, the better, and I will support that every time.

I would prefer it if the bill had been named the 'stage 3 cost-of-living tax cuts', because that would have reminded people that it was preceded by stage 1 and stage 2, which were part of the overall package. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall from the debate back when the initial package was passed that someone on $60,000 a year received, over both stages, around $2,000 additional in their pay packet, reducing their tax burden from around $10,000 to $8,000. On top of that, as I've previously mentioned, they also received the low- and middle-income tax offset during that period of great uncertainty and difficulty during the COVID pandemic. That puts a bit of perspective on this particular debate, where we've come from and where we are today.

We can't discuss this issue and talk about this legislation without looking at the issue of trust. There are 1.3 million Australians who will be worse off after this legislation passes. They had legislated tax cuts they had been looking at for the last five years. They have been thinking: 'Okay, if I go that extra five, 10 yards on buying the house, I will be receiving a significant tax cut on 1 July 2024, so I will factor that into my household budget. I'll factor putting the kid into an independent school. I want to give them the best opportunity.' They did that on the basis that on 1 July 2024 they would receive a tax cut, and that was reassured I think over 100 times by the Prime Minister—that that tax cut would take place. He looked down the barrel of a camera on many occasions and assured those 1.2 million Australians.

Those on the other side don't have a lot of time for people who are earning high-level incomes over $135,000, but the fact is they voted for that legislation five years ago, and those people who were banking on that extra income had every right to believe the Prime Minister. They had every right to think that on 1 July 2024 they would be receiving extra money in their pay packets. Budgets were done around that, plans were made, and today we are debating taking those tax cuts away from them, tax cuts that have been enshrined in legislation for five years now. That is the most egregious broken promise that I have seen in my 10 years in this place.

The Australian people generally cut politicians a bit of slack. They understand that sometimes situations change. But when they have been reassured over 100 times, as recently as the middle of January, that these tax cuts wouldn't be tampered with then the Australian people, not just the 1.3 million people who won't be receiving those tax cuts, generally will take a fairly dim view of that. They will look at the motivation for it. It is all about cost of living now. We are hearing Labor members stand up in question time and in 90-second statements, and it is all about cost of living. Last year it was all about the Voice; we barely heard the phrase 'cost of living' in this place.

The cynics out there, and there are probably a few cynics in here, might think, 'We've got a by-election coming up in Dunkley and perhaps the polling isn't looking all that good.' Perhaps the message was coming through that cost of living was really starting to bite in electorates like Dunkley. So all of a sudden we have a complete backflip on a promise, on a piece of legislation that has been enshrined for the last five years, a few weeks out from a by-election. There are a lot of people out there who are thinking the motivation for this is not quite as altruistic as it might have been made out to be in this place over the last few days. It might be something a little more base—that is, to try to get over the line in Dunkley and save Prime Minister's job.

We have heard a lot about the cost of living and how it is impacting on families and I see that across my electorate. There is no question about that. These tax cuts for the lower and middle-income people will be greatly appreciated. I have no problem with that—good on them—and I'm glad that we can support this legislation. But I also feel that those 1.3 million Australians who had every right to bank on those tax cuts coming through on 1 July have been betrayed. The coalition, while we are supporting these tax cuts, will be taking a tax package to the next election which will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. That is something that the coalition has been committed to since day one of my election.

We need to fight bracket creep. Once again, my friend the member for Makin mentioned bracket creep as if it's something that's a bit too hard: 'It's been part of the landscape for a long time, so let's keep it separate from this particular debate.' But the whole point of the tax package that was voted for by the coalition and the Labor Party—stages 1, 2 and 3—was to deliver tax cuts but also to address bracket creep. Of course, by taking away those stage 3 tax cuts we're back to the old situation when somebody progresses up through the ranks, gets a promotion, works a bit harder, gets a new job that pays a bit better—and for people in my electorate of O'Connor, the mining industry is a great opportunity for people to get into those higher-paying jobs—and hits $135,000 a year. I know people in here say they're filthy-rich people who don't deserve a break, but there are a lot of people in my electorate on that sort of money who are hardworking miners, truck drivers and farmers—people who work really hard and do earn a good quid, and good on 'em; they deserve to keep every cent. They deserve, as they move up through the ranks and earn more money, which everybody aspires to, to keep the bulk of that money, rather than have it taken back through bracket creep.

So 1.8 million taxpayers will be worse off. I have to correct the record; I was using the number 1.3 million. Not only will those 1.8 million be worse off but over the next 10 years there are going to be around 4½ million who will be worse off as this insidious bracket creep takes effect. We've seen the effect of bracket creep on the current government's budget. They talk very proudly of the surplus they've recorded, and I for one think that's a very worthy goal, reducing the budget surplus. But personal income tax receipts have risen by 27 per cent in the past 18 months. That's because there are more people in work than perhaps there historically have been, although they inherited record-low unemployment. But it's also because bracket creep is sneaking up and taking an extra bite of people's pay packet. It's as simple as that. It's a huge amount of money that has come out of the pay packets of Australian people. It's a massive amount of money and it needs to be addressed, and that's what the stage 3 tax cuts are all about.

To go back to the Prime Minister's integrity and whether he can be believed going forward, this is not the first promise he's broken. He made a promise on 93 occasions before the election that there'd be a $275 reduction in energy bills. People are not seeing that. People are questioning whether that was a promise that was given in good faith. He said there'd be an increase in real wages. There hasn't been an increase in real wages. And of course he promised he wouldn't touch the stage 3 tax cuts and, as we've seen, that's another broken promise. But now anybody who's got a negatively geared property or aspires to own a negatively geared property is under the gun. And when the Prime Minister denies that they're going after those people who've got a negatively geared property, who can put any store in his word whatsoever?

I say to those opposite—particularly the Greens, who aren't here—who think that negatively geared rental properties are the plaything of the rich and famous, that rich people don't worry about buying rental properties and having to deal with tenants and so on. For the wage earner, the nurse or the policeman, it's their one opportunity to actually get a bit of wealth over and above their family home, which they are probably paying off a mortgage for, and their super. It's their one chance to make a bit of wealth and set themselves up for retirement. They are the people who invest in rental properties. They're not high-wage earners. They're just people who want to have a go, get ahead, set themselves up for a comfortable retirement and maybe leave something to their kids one day or be able to help their kids out. They are the people who invest in rental properties.

Finally, being a proud Western Australian, I can only reiterate and express my concern about the future of the GST deal. We know that, over here on the east coast, we've got every premier and every economist calling for the end of the GST deal, which the previous finance minister Mattias Corman and treasurer Scott Morrison put in place to rectify—

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) | Link to this | Hansard source

And Peter Dutton opposed in cabinet.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

That doesn't matter. What matters is that the coalition put together a deal. I remember the member for Burt and others saying that it couldn't be done and that no-one would ever agree to it. We've now got a GST deal which does rectify the inequalities in the GST distribution and treats WA fairly. The Prime Minister will go to Western Australia next week and he'll look down the barrel of the camera and say, 'We're not going to touch the WA GST deal.' He'll look straight down that camera, the same way he did when he said, 'We won't touch the stage 3 tax cuts,' and I don't think the people of Western Australia are going to believe him, quite frankly. I don't think they're going to be able to say, 'Yes, Prime Minister.'

When you think about the rationale that we've heard in here about taking from the rich and giving to the poor and about taking from a rich state and giving to the poorer states, the same rationale could be applied to the GST deal. Quite frankly, I'm concerned for Western Australia and our future finances. We do pretty well with our iron ore industry, but I don't trust the Prime Minister not to take away our GST.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to join my colleagues in supporting Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 offer cost-of-living relief and tax reform. As the Prime Minister has said, Labor has been very concerned about the cost-of-living impact on families, individuals and Australians around the country. Those on this side of the House have been critically concerned with this, none more so than myself, representing, as I do, a community in the outer west of Melbourne where most people have a mortgage. Watching the interest rate rises and having an understanding of the impact of those and what this means for many in my community, I have been incredibly concerned.

I've been very proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government. All the members of our cabinet, all the members of the executive and all the members of the backbench are critically concerned about these things and have been working together collaboratively across 20 months of government to find ways to put supports in place for people. It began in that December after we were first elected, when caucus members saw what was going to happen and came back to Canberra to fix it by bringing in legislation to put downward pressure on energy prices. From that point, the Australian public was in good hands, because we had a cabinet whose members were going to work together to find ways to support Australians.

We saw it again in health. We saw it with cheaper medicine, and I know what that means on the ground for my community. I know what that means in my house. It means that, when you are on a long-term medications and you go to the chemist, you're getting longer scripts, there are more scripts on the PBS and all medicines are cheaper than they were. This is critical, and it has made a real difference on the ground. Of course, there is the tripling of the bulk-billing incentives, which is turning around the bulk-billing rates across the country, and those bulk-billing rates are reversing in the electorate of Lalor.

We introduced an increase to the rental subsidy. We did the childcare support package. This government has been focused on reducing the pressure on families across the country. Today, the legislation before us is the introduction of Labor's tax cuts cost-of-living relief. This is a critical piece of legislation, because it will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer, first and foremost. It's hard to use that language of a tax cut, for me, because it isn't the tax cut; it's actually the increase in your pay packet because less tax has been taken. It will give families and everyone in my electorate more disposable income at a time when they really need it. Importantly, it doesn't have an inflationary impact. This, of course, is critical, because we're still fighting inflation.

In Lalor, there are 95,000 taxpayers who will be getting a tax cut from 1 July under this package that is being introduced, as the Prime Minister said, because it is the right decision made at the right time in response to cost-of-living pressures. Eighty-eight per cent of the taxpayers in Lalor will be better off under Labor's stage 3 tax system, so 84,000 taxpayers will be better off. We've heard speaker after speaker go through what that means. We heard the member for O'Connor talking about teachers, police officers and rental properties. I tell you what I can tell teachers and police officers in my electorate: from 1 July, under this government, you will have more in your pockets because of these tax cuts than you would have had under the Liberal plan. It's not just teachers, and it's not just police officers. It's the nurses, aged-care workers, childcare workers, those who work in transport and logistics, forklift drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, people working in retail, people working in building and construction and people working in the public sector. This will have a positive impact on the gamut of people across my electorate.

As I said here in another opportunity last week, I know that, on 1 July, I can look the people of my community in the eye. Like thousands of other Australians who, under the Morrison tax cuts, would have received a smaller tax cut, I am pleased that this decision means that families, young people and women in my community will get more money in their pockets rather than in mine. I can't be blunter than that. I know that that's a sentiment shared across the country, because that's what we're hearing. The feedback coming back to me from families and people I know outside my electorate—people who earn $200,000 plus—is that they are happy that this is happening. There's no denying that that is real.

To those opposite, I say it would be nice, as the Treasurer said today, if you were enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's probably too much to hope for. I'm pleased that the member for O'Connor, at least, has expressed quite clearly that he's pleased. The speech wasn't overwhelmingly positive, but he's pleased to support this, because he knows the difference it will make to people in his electorate who earn $40,000 a year. It means something where they were going to get nothing. Those opposite may not be enthusiastic, but I welcome them reluctantly supporting the tax cuts and reluctantly supporting this.

There's been a lot of talk in here this evening about what we've spoken about in this place across 20 months. I tell you what we've talked a lot about: the cost of living. On this side, we've talked a lot about the things that we've been doing to address cost of living and assist people in that while, as a government and as a country, we fight inflation. That's what we've heard a lot about. Do you know what else we've heard a lot about? We've had a lot of questions from the other side about energy bills across 20 months. Unfortunately, in December, they all came in and voted against things that were designed to put downward pressure on energy bills, so any question they ask on energy bills completely loses credibility and validity, as far as I'm concerned. But I note that, in the last two weeks since the Prime Minister stood up at the National Press Club and explained his and our decision and our processes to get to this place, there's been a complete lack of interest from that side of the chamber on the impacts of the cost of living on residents around this country. It is glaring that it is suddenly not of interest to those opposite.

One of the things I'm concerned about with that is that people might think that the cost-of-living pressures have gone away, and of course they haven't. And, as the Prime Minister has also said, this legislation brings some relief. It brings some reform around bracket creep, some reform around taxation to support people, but it's not the job finished. The inflationary pressures are still there—moderating but still there. People are still doing it tough.

I'm really proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government. I'm really proud to work with the members of the government on this side who are so concerned about these pressures. I'm really proud to support a cabinet who are prepared to work together to find ways to support Australians in communities like mine and in communities across this country. I'm really proud that, as a government, we've demonstrated that we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can deal with an inflationary crisis and care for people and, more importantly, meet our commitment to not leave people behind.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. There has been much talk and spin about the fact that Labor have tweaked the coalition stage 3 tax cuts in a manner that attempts to cement the narrative that they are the party of the battler, of the low-income worker. That's just a load of rubbish. This continuing rhetoric and attempt to project themselves as the Robin Hood party, where they take from the rich and give to the poor, is not washing with Australian people, because they aren't fools.

Let us look at the facts—a new concept, I know! Firstly, these are proposed stage 3 tax cuts. This means there were two stages before this one. I know this because it was the coalition who legislated all three stages. It was our idea, our policy, because we are, and always have been, the party that believes in and delivers lower taxes to all workers. We're also the party that believes in simplifying the tax system, not making it more complicated. The original legislation not only allowed hardworking Australians to keep more of what they earned—a term first coined by the coalition, which I notice Labor have now picked up on and are using with gusto and enthusiasm. They do say that, when you are copied, that is the greatest form of flattery.

I digress. The coalition's legislated tax cuts eliminated entirely the 37c in the dollar tax bracket and reduced the 32½ per cent bracket to 30 per cent. To assist low- and middle-income workers, from July 2020 we lifted the 19c bracket from $37,000 to $45,000. These measures meant that every worker earning up to $200,000 would not pay more than 30c in tax on any dollar they earnt. What a wonderful incentive for people who have aspirations to work hard, take risks and/or upskill themselves. Labor have re-complicated the tax system by reintroducing the 37c bracket for those who earn more than $135,000—in doing so, punishing those with these aspirations. They have also legislated that those earning $190,000 or more will pay 45c in tax on every dollar they earn over that figure.

The coalition understand that a percentage of a bigger number is a larger amount in real dollar terms, and we wanted to ensure low- and middle-income workers on under $120,000 were looked after as well as those on higher incomes. This was achieved in two ways. First, stages 1 and 2 of these tax cuts implemented the tax cuts for those on these lower incomes back in 2018-19 and in 2020-21, when we were in government. Stage 3, where the tax cuts came in for those on higher incomes, were due to commence this July. This is further evidence that the coalition is the party of all workers, including those on lower incomes. Second, the LMITO, or the low- and middle-income tax offset, was introduced for those on an income of less than $120,000. I can testify firsthand, from speaking to people on these lower incomes, to the real difference this made in their lives. Getting their tax done and receiving a windfall of up to an extra $1,500 in their tax refund was, for some, life-changing.

Debate interrupted.