Kara Cook (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn? How does the recent budget help to deliver aspiration for all, not just some? And what are the risks to this approach?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the fantastic member for Bonner for the question, and I thank her for her strong advocacy on behalf of working people there in Brisbane. Today the Fair Work Commission has made this critical decision, which will assist three million workers by giving them a 4.75 per cent increase to the minimum wage. This makes lowest paid workers some $12,000 a year better off compared to when we took office in 2022, making a real difference for real people. This is delivering real change—in this case, a 12 per cent real wage increase over the time we have been in office. That stands in stark contrast to the risk of those opposite, who argue that having low wages was a key feature of their economic architecture.

For members on this side of the House, this is good news, because we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, with higher wages and lower income taxes, because our budget delivered another two income tax cuts for working Australians. This week, every Labor member in this House will vote to deliver them. This will take the number of tax cuts delivered by us in government to five—five income tax cuts, five consecutive increases to the minimum wage.

What do all those have in common? They were all good for working Australians, and they were all opposed by those opposite—every single measure. Those opposite argued against higher wages, against income tax cuts and against more young people getting a fair crack at getting into the housing market.

This is why Labor is the party of aspiration. We believe in aspiration for all, not just some. We believe that aspiration is about improving your lot in life, not just staying where you are; it is about not just entrenching privilege, but creating the opportunity for every Australian to be their best. It is the party that backs first home buyers to own their own home, the party that helps Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, because we want that aspiration to be available for all. We are delivering real change. Those opposite are just drifting back to the past. They've made Tony Abbott the president of the Liberal Party. He couldn't make it to two years as prime minister. That is their vision of looking towards the future.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Over the last 12 months, the Albanese Labor government has taken $410 of extra tax from the average worker through bracket creep, and Labor will continue to rely on it year after year. Can the Treasurer confirm the working Australians tax offset will be chewed up by bracket creep within a year?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

If anybody is looking for evidence that the member for Goldstein is not the sharpest tool in the shed, how about him asking about tax cuts on the day that their party room decided to vote against tax cuts for 13 million Australian workers?

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Solomon.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

Of all the things to ask us about today, maybe they could have waited for another day to ask us about bracket creep, when this side of the House, this week in the House of Representatives, will be returning bracket creep and that side of the House will be voting to keep bracket creep. It's almost as if somebody who writes these questions is deliberately setting him up, because, only a few hours ago in the coalition party room—that meeting of minds down that end of the building—they decided to repeat the same mistake that they made not that long ago: to vote against tax cuts for Australian working people. This side of the House will be voting for tax cuts, won't we? We'll be voting for tax cuts when the—

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Solomon will leave the chamber under 94(a). Do not interject while people are approaching, and use correct titles in this House.

The member for Solomon then left the chamber.

Member for Goldstein, a point of order?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was specifically about whether the Treasurer could confirm the working Australians tax offset will be chewed up by bracket creep within a year. I know he enjoys spraying abuse—

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat. The Treasurer wasn't asked about the opposition or their policies, so I'm going to bring him back to the question. If he continues to talk about the opposition, he'll be sat down.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked about the working Australians tax offset. We'll be voting for it, and they'll be voting against it. That's the decision that was taken today in their party room. Now, when it comes to returning bracket creep, this is a government which has returned bracket creep on five occasions, using three different mechanisms. In fact, there'll be another tax cut on 1 July, less than a month from now—the same tax cuts that they said they would repeal. The difference here is very clear: a Labor government led by this Prime Minister cutting income taxes—again and again and again—for millions of Australian workers, versus an opposition which votes against tax cuts for Australia's working people. The point that I'm making about the working Australians tax offset is that, because of our efforts, Australians will be getting another tax cut. If they had their way, Australians would be paying higher income taxes, not lower income taxes.