Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to an example in the government's own budget documents. Jack has a taxable income, before capital gains, of $25,000 and realises a capital gain of $10,000 on an asset that he purchased. Jack does not receive an income support payment, so he's not exempt from the minimum tax. The tax on Jack's capital gain of $10,000 is $1,400, or a tax rate of 14 per cent. As this is lower than 30 per cent, Jack pays an additional $1,600 in tax to bring the tax rate on his capital gain up to 30 per cent. This cannot be true. Why is the Albanese government forcing Australians earning $25,000 a year to pay $1,600 in additional tax through their high-taxing budget?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm waiting for the chamber to come to order before I call the minister. Senator Cash, Senator Watt. Order! Order! Order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Order! Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hume for the opportunity to talk about the budget, to talk about the changes to tax and to say to her that I realise her legacy for the Liberal Party was more debt, higher deficit and higher taxes but that is not the approach we are taking. What we are doing is changing the tax system to give young Australians a chance. I've heard the discussion on the other side about aspiration and I ask them: What is more aspirational than the Australian dream of owning your own home? What is more aspirational than that? And why are you standing in the way of that?

The Treasurer has outlined in great detail, and I'd invite Senator Hume to read the budget papers, because they tell the story of the generational impact the tax system that we have has on the capacity of young people to get a fair chance to have the sort of opportunities that we had. That is what these papers show, and we believe on this side that it is part of our obligation, as those who form the government in the country, to make sure that the next generation of Australians has the same opportunities for homeownership and to get ahead that many of the people in this chamber had. That is the fundamental promise of this budget, and fundamentally it is the promise that you cannot countenance, because you accept the status quo, which continues to ensure that younger Australians do not have the same advantages. You accept that. We on this side do not.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for answering has expired. Before I call you, Senator Hume—when ministers rise to answer questions, I expect them to be heard in silence. I must have had to yell 'order' at the very top of my voice at least five times, and you all ignored me. The running commentary is disrespectful, and you will listen in silence.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister admitted today that he has used negative gearing in the past; he admitted that he still does. It is a great rags-to-riches story for a boy from social housing. Why is the Prime Minister happy to deny the next generation the opportunities that he used to build wealth and get ahead?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The question has been asked. I am going to invite Senator Wong to answer it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I would make a few points. The first is people can still use negative gearing when they invest in a new build. That is the position the government has articulated in the budget. We have acknowledged this is a change. Why have we made this change? The budget papers go through this very clearly. What they show is that the combination of capital gains tax and negative gearing has the effect of privileging the position of investors in the housing market, and what we want to try and ensure is that the composition of housing includes more owner occupiers because we want more young people to enter the housing market, to have the same opportunities as you had. That is what this is about. What we are also combining it with is tax reform that delivers more for working Australians—again, something those opposite— (Time expired)

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am waiting for silence again. Senator Hume, a second supplementary?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to his own budget documents, the Prime Minister is forcing low-income Australians to pay thousands in extra tax and closing the door on opportunities he used to young Australians. Isn't it clear that this budget is nothing but a shameless tax grab which denies opportunity for young Australians to get ahead?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wait for silence. Senator Hume, you have asked your question.

Senator Cash, you should not be talking to anyone.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would say to those opposite about tax is not only does this budget contain a new tax cut for every working Australian but the combination of the tax cuts that this government is delivering is around $2,800 to someone on the average income, and that stands in stark contrast to Senator Hume, who went to the last election promising Australians higher taxes.

Senator, you may shout and wiggle your finger at me and look down your nose at me, but you will never be able to run away from the fact you are 'higher taxes Senator Hume'. That is what you are, and you will always be.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that was a pretty disgraceful response; so disgraceful that it was impossible for me to get order because all of you were interjecting.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Minister Gallagher. Minister, your government's budget cut $180 billion—in fact, $185 billion—from the NDIS over the decade, the largest reduction to a government program in living memory. Are you proud that your government is making 10 times more from the defunding of disabled people than it is taking from the ultrawealthy property investors?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Steele-John for the question. I do think it has been an important budget to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the NDIS. I've been around a while, and, when the NDIS was originally established, the information available to everyone was that at full rollout it would annually cost in the order of $13 billion and that it would assist and support in the order of 460,000 people. Where we are now, some years down the track, is that the scheme is exceeding $50 billion and, outside of the age pension, is the largest social program in the country. Without taking action, and at the current growth rates, it would exceed $70 billion. I think—and the government's taken the view—that if that is allowed to continue then the sustainability of the scheme will be in question.

Yes, we have taken some really hard decisions. A lot of work has been done by Senator McAllister, along with the Minister for Health and Ageing, to look at how we can protect the scheme, return it to its original focus but also, importantly, Senator Steele-John, rebuild the system outside the NDIS, and there are investments in this budget to do that.

At the moment, if you are not in the NDIS and you need extra support, it doesn't exist unless you have dollars to pay for it. That is a problem. Again, we can put our heads in the sand and say, 'We'll leave that as a problem for somebody else down the track,' or we can sit down and try and work out how we return the NDIS to its original intention, idea and program. It's quite different to that now. Anyone who has watched the NDIS understands that. Yes, we need to focus on compliance and all the other issues, but we need to deal with these big challenges as well. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, first supplementary?

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when governments have previously changed the NDIS, they have assured the disability community that no-one would be worse off. Can you guarantee today that no disabled person will lose support, receive less support or be left worse off under your government's changes?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget tries to deal with those reforms in two ways. In the first way, it tries to manage the growth of the scheme immediately, and some of that is to do with plan inflation and the reassessments of plans. Then there's a second piece of work around how we manage some of the other changes that are going to be required in the NDIS. I know that, under the leadership of Senator McAllister and the Minister for Health and Ageing, that will be done in consultation with the disability community.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John?

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, my question was very clear: 'Will you guarantee that no-one will be worse off?' I would draw the minister's attention to answering that basic question.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Steele-John. The minister is being relevant to the question you asked.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of people's needs for day-to-day support and disability support, we are about protecting that and making sure that the budget can fund that in an ongoing sense. At the moment, the scheme is growing and has been growing much faster than anyone expected, and we need to deal with that. I think the failure to do so would put at risk the NDIS as a program. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, second supplementary?

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, we understand that the government's so-called Thriving Kids program is intended for children under nine. Your government has been silent on what will happen to autistic teenagers and adults. Many autistic adults and teenagers are wondering whether they will be part of the 160,000 your government intends to kick off the scheme. What alternative supports will you fund for autistic adults and teenagers in this budget?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have made provisions in order to rebuild the system that exists outside the NDIS, and I can speak about this because I know it personally; my daughter has spoken about this. Outside the NDIS, for young autistic people that need an extra hand there is very little offered that doesn't cost money. Unless you have money, you're not going to be able to go and get the supports you need, so part of our motivation is to make sure the system that exists outside the scheme is there to help people and support people. They may need more or less support at a particular point in time or may need a particular program. That is exactly what we want to rebuild. The system outside the NDIS used to exist. It doesn't exist anymore. We've got to rebuild that, and Senator McAllister and Minister Butler will consult on that, and there are provisions in the budget for that.