MOTIONS

Mr FRENCH (Moore) (18:14): There is something remarkably easy about writing tax policy from opposition. You can promise everyone a tax cut, promise nobody will lose anything, promise better services and promise lower debt, and apparently never explain how it adds up. That appears to be the coalition's latest economic strategy—tax cuts without cost, spending without consequence, debt without responsibility.

It's economics by press release. Australians have seen this before. When Labor came to government, we inherited enormous deficits, rising inflation, falling real wages and close to a trillion dollars of debt.

And now those opposite are doing it again. They constantly talk about bracket creep—which is fair enough; workers should keep more of what they earn. That is precisely why this government is cutting taxes.

On 1 July, more than 14 million Australians received another tax cut—a tax cut those opposite voted against. They then promised to repeal Labor's tax cuts at the last election, and when they got another opportunity this year they voted against tax cuts again. There is something slightly curious about listening to the coalition lecture this side of the chamber about income tax, because if they had gotten their way Australian workers would be paying more tax today, not less.

Our combined tax changes mean a worker on average earnings can ultimately be more than $2,800 a year better off. But tax reform cannot simply mean finding the biggest number you can announce and leaving someone else to work out the arithmetic. That is where the coalition's proposal starts to fall apart.

Their alternative is uncosted, is unfunded and, on government estimates, would add more than a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars to national debt. So what are they going to do—increase another tax, borrow more money or cut services? There is no fourth option where hundreds of billions of dollars simply materialise under the Treasurer's desk.

Australians deserve an answer. Is it Medicare, pensions, aged care, schools or infrastructure? If those opposite want to promise hundreds of billions of dollars in tax changes, they have an obligation to explain where that money comes from.

That is what governing means. Do the numbers. Take responsibility for both sides of the ledger.

The coalition seems to think economic policy consists only of the pleasant side—spend more, tax more, borrow less, cut nothing, and everybody wins. If someone offered you that investment in private life, you would probably check whether your wallet was still in your pocket. Our approach is different.

We are cutting the tax burden on workers, helping more Australians into homeownership, cutting taxes for businesses and startups, reducing compliance costs and making the tax system fairer. For small business, we are making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. That gives businesses certainty.

If a small business needs a ute, new tools, equipment or technology, they should be able to make that investment knowing what the tax treatment will be. We're also supporting cash flow, helping startups and expanding investment incentives. That is tax reform with a purpose—reward work, encourage investment, help businesses grow and help Australians build a future.

Compare that with those opposite. At the last election, they promised to increase income taxes by reversing Labor's tax cuts. Now, suddenly, they have discovered tax relief.

That is quite a conversion. The problem is they still haven't discovered a calculator. This is becoming a pattern: they oppose tax cuts and then complain about tax; they demand lower debt and then propose policies that increase debt; they demand lower inflation and then propose unfunded fiscal expansion.

They want the political benefit of every decision while refusing to accept the economic consequence. That is not responsible economic management. Labor has a different view.

A tax policy should reward people who work, should encourage productive investment, should support Australian businesses and should help young Australians build a future—and should be paid for. That final point should not be controversial. There is nothing conservative about hundreds of billions of dollars in unexplained debt.

There is nothing responsible about promising tax cuts without explaining what services will be cut. There is nothing credible about voting against tax cuts for Australian workers and then reinventing yourself as the party of lower income tax. Australians deserve tax relief.

They also deserve honesty. If you're going to cut tax, explain how you will pay for it.