Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Leader of the House) (11:15): I'd advise the House and advise members that at the end of this speech we'll be bringing this to a vote, because it's time for this parliament to decide whether or not we're going to provide a tax cut for every Australian.

You would have thought that, for the big fight that those opposite decide to pick when they get to budget night and do the presser afterwards, the whole backbench would be ready to come in behind its leadership. But we get the shadow Treasurer making a speech, then the Leader of the Opposition and then no-one—none of the backbench turn up! We have two speeches from the crossbench—because no-one from there jumps.

Then the member for New England comes in to be the one loyal soldier to give a speech about tax cuts. It's a 15-minute speech, but he gets to the 13-minute mark and still hasn't mentioned them, then refers to them for all of 24 seconds before returning to the rest of his stream of consciousness. Today is the day when this term—and where the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken their party—reaches full circle.

Never again let it be said by those opposite that, somehow, they think they are the party of lower taxes. Up until today, they've been able to say, 'It was just the Leader of the Opposition,' or, 'It was just the shadow Treasurer.' We know they're saying that, because it's in the papers. We know that they're all running off all their backbenchers, complaining about the lack of a coherent economic message.

Today, all that changes. When the tax cuts were announced for the previous budget, they were initially going to fight them. They were going to hold an early election over them.

But, eventually, they folded and said: 'Okay. Maybe we'll support them. We just won't be happy about it.' Today, you can't go back to your branches anymore and say: 'That's just the leadership.

That's not what we believe.' You will now go back to your branches after what's about to happen, and it will be on you that you have voted for every worker in your electorates to have higher taxes. You're about to actively be part of that decision. Part of the reason why we're bringing this to a vote now is that I want to give the Senate the chance to consider this tonight.

I want there to be an opportunity for this to be law. Make no mistake, the conversation that those opposite will be having with their party members and with every single person who votes for them will be about explaining not whether or not they want to give this money but the fact that they want to take it away. They keep telling us in interview after interview—the shadow Treasurer used the line again on the weekend—'The best guide to future action is past performance.' Well, they are about to provide the textbook case of past performance, which is: when you are given a decision, do you vote for taxes to be lower or higher?

Members on this side are about to vote for taxes to be lower. We're about to vote consistently with how we've voted on every cost-of-living measure. We know that, if you want the cost of living to be eased for people, you want their taxes to be lower, and we voted for that.

Those opposite are about to vote for taxes to be higher. To ease the cost of living, you want wages to be higher, and we voted for that. At every single opportunity, those opposite have voted to restrain wages, just as they did for nine years, when low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of how they managed the economy.

They have been consistent with every other cost-of-living measure, opposing energy bill relief, opposing free TAFE and opposing cheaper medicines, but it has taken until today that they have been forced to have the vote on where they stand on taxation. Let's remember that these tax cuts build on what we did last time that they didn't want us to do. They are a top-up on what happened last time.

When you put them together, you get an average tax cut of $43 a week for 2026-27 and an average tax cut of $50 per week in 2027-28. Does that mean that the cost of living is solved? Of course it doesn't.

You also need all the other measures, including higher wages and what we have done to bring inflation down. You need all of that to be able to make sure you're looking after people. But what is there up in lights is that those opposite oppose every single one of those measures—absolutely everything that would make life easier for people.

Those opposite don't just believe that it should be harder for people; they vote that it should be harder for people. So, after this moment, never think that there is an option for those opposite to claim that they're the party of lower taxes, because they will have voted for tax to be higher for every single Australian taxpayer—every one of them. As the PM said, tax cuts are the only cuts that they don't support.

They're the only cuts they don't support. Those opposite have cuts planned, particularly because of their plans for nuclear. You don't get to spend $600 billion without making cuts.

We know that they oppose what we did on medicines. They've opposed energy bill relief. They've opposed higher wages.

They've opposed cheaper child care. Three times in three years they've opposed three tax cuts, and throughout all of that time this government has had a very simple refrain: people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. No-one on the other side was able to make it to their time defending what is in front of us.

Mr Hamilton interjecting— Mr BURKE: Maybe you want your audition for the front bench. I got to say that there are a good number you are better than. It's a very special front bench that those opposite have provided.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! It's not a two-way conversation. Mr BURKE: When they've gone off on tangents on other issues—let me just very quickly correct some of the things that they've said that have just been bizarre.

They claimed that they will lower immigration at the same time that they voted to make overseas students unlimited. Unlimited was how they voted. They claimed that they're going to put a two-year ban in place that will stop foreign buyers from competing against young Australians for homes, when a ban of that nature has already been announced and starts on Tuesday of next week.

They claimed to be outraged about 29,000 businesses that have gone insolvent, without mentioning that insolvencies as a proportion of companies under the Albanese Labor government is in fact the lowest of any government on record. While they might want to talk about 29,000 businesses across the term, what they don't want to mention is 25,000 new companies registered every single month, which makes the average monthly new company registrations higher under this government than under any other government on record.

For every single metric that those opposite put out, every principle they claim they believe in, they vote the opposite way. I'd love to understand how you're meant to help with the cost of living by making taxes higher, wages lower and getting rid of cost-of-living relief. Let's not forget that someone kept telling me that the best guide to future actions is past performance.

The best guide to future actions is past performance, and the Liberal Party has been fundamentally a party that has decided, under the leadership of this Leader of the Opposition and this shadow Treasurer, it's so committed to saying no to everything that it will say no to tax cuts, no to wage rises and no to cost-of-living relief. People know that, when the Leader of the Opposition cuts, they will pay.

That is what people know. People know that he wants to cut wages, because the opposition kept wages flatlining, and everything we've done to get wages moving in this country, those opposite have opposed. When he launches those wage cuts, people will pay for them.

We've made prescription medicines cheaper, getting them down to the prices they were in 2004. Yet, every time we've acted on cheaper medicines, those opposite have opposed us. Whenever they see something that will help Australians, those opposite have been absolutely determined to oppose it—every single measure.

Those opposite are absolutely committed to higher taxes, lower wages and getting rid of cost-of-living relief. You don't have to believe their interviews or their rhetoric; you just have to look at how they voted. Up until now, we haven't had a vote in this parliament where they've actually gone through with their rhetoric and voted for higher taxes.

Here's an opportunity for all those on the back bench, for all those on the front bench, for all those people—and I don't know who you are—who give the background comments to the papers about how much they hate the economic decisions that are being made by their leadership group. I don't know what level of consultation happened before the opposition announced they were going to oppose the tax cuts.

I don't know what level of consultation happened, but I do know this: in the vote in a couple of minutes time, because you keep boasting to us that in your party you can vote your own way, you're about to own this vote. You're about to be in a situation where, for every elector, you either support them getting a tax cut or you don't. It will be on the Hansard record.

It's a vote you'll never be able to walk away from. You can't blame the leadership, because you keep telling us you can vote whichever way you want. My simple call to every member of this parliament is, if you believe there should be a tax cut for every Australian, then vote for this bill.

If you believe in higher taxes, then vote no and own the consequences. I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the question be put.