MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (15:20): We've just had 10 minutes of rhetoric, 10 minutes of talking the talk, from a party that, when they were in government, did not walk the walk. There is absolutely no indication that this group in opposition have changed. There's no indication that they're going to walk the walk any time in the near future.

They continue to block savings. They continue to commit to unparalleled levels of unfunded spending. What we've seen from those opposite is a willingness to raise the issue of economic responsibility but no willingness to actually commit to practising it, no willingness to commit to the hard work of delivering it.

Our government has demonstrated a willingness to support people who we know are in many cases doing it tough. We've done this in a wide variety of ways. This government has committed to and delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer this year and next.

When we get through those tax cuts for every taxpayer, this government will have delivered tax cuts five times in three different ways. And almost all of those tax cuts will have been opposed by those opposite—and not just opposed; they went to the last election with an explicit policy of unwinding two of those tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. This government is committed to and is delivering cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and record hospital funding.

It's committed to urgent care clinics, and I've seen two of them in my electorate, delivering help to people day in, day out. I know some of those opposite very much support this policy. I know they support it—not all of those opposite, but I know there are some in particular on the other side who do.

This government is committed to higher wages and fairer pay for Australian workers. We've seen that through support for minimum wage increases. We've seen that through increases for workers in the care economy—15 per cent increases for those in early learning, 15 per cent for those in aged care—again, opposed by those opposite and opposed by One Nation.

We're committed to more social and affordable housing and helping first-home buyers get into the market with five per cent deposits, as well as free TAFE, slashing student debt and expanding paid prac. And free TAFE and expanding paid prac is so critical. Not only is it a measure of fairness; it's a cost-of-living measure.

It's also a supply-side measure. It also means getting more skills into the economy. It's helping our economy move from where it is to a place where there is downward pressure on inflation.

So it ticks all those boxes. We've also supported measures to provide a fairer deal at the checkout, including action against supermarket price gouging. This government has delivered a 10-fold increase in the maximum penalty for price gouging.

It sat stable for the almost decade that those opposite were in power. We've increased it 10-fold, as well as increasing funding for the ACCC to look into priority sectors. Almost all those measures I've just run through are measures to give people higher pay, measures to give people tax cuts to keep more of what they earn, measures to support people through cost-of-living supports—almost all of them opposed by those opposite.

But they will come in here with faux outrage about how people are doing it tough and then oppose practical measures to help people. We've put in place serious measures to reform the tax system which for too long have been on the to-do list, such as changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, which will mean we are tilting the property market back in favour of younger people, back in favour of first-home buyers.

We are removing from the housing market longstanding distortions that for too long have seen, over recent decades, house prices gallop ahead of incomes and have seen homeownership rates for younger people, for young families with dependants, falling rapidly. We need to undo that. We need to reverse that.

In the last budget we put in place significant benefits in the tax system for small business, making the instant asset write-off permanent. They've been calling for that for a long time; we're the party that delivered it. We're also putting in place loss carry-back measures.

But it's really when it comes to measures to support taxpayers that the difference between the two sides is the most stark. We're delivering tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, commencing 1 July this year and again from 1 July next year. This means that, when you look at all of the different measures, including the instant deduction and the different tax cuts and the WATO, there is a total of up to $2,816 for the average worker.

That is a significant reduction in the tax burden for those on average wages. Again, almost all the elements of that were either not supported or opposed by those opposite. Let's contrast this with what those opposite are putting forward.

They oppose almost every cost-of-living measure. They went to the last election with an explicit promise of higher taxes, and that was, not surprisingly, rejected by the Australian people. But what they've done since the last election is in many ways even worse.

The tally so far is around $110 billion in unfunded spending commitments. They come into this place—and we saw this with the last contribution—with the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but, every time you turn around, there's a new, huge, unfunded spending commitment and a significant increase in gross debt over the next decade as a result of their overall fiscal settings.

This is what we're seeing from those opposite—rhetoric not matched with the actual policies they're putting to the Australian people. Just in question time today, again, they talked about fiscal responsibility and put questions to this side of the House pushing for more spending. It shows the inconsistency between their rhetoric and what they actually deliver in this place.

The Australian people will see through this. The budget as it stands is around $230 billion better off compared to the situation that we inherited—compared to the trajectory that we inherited. That reflects two budget surpluses delivered.

That reflects the fact that in the last budget we delivered over $60 billion in saves and reprioritisation. Those opposite talk big, as we saw in the previous contribution, but they don't deliver. That significant improvement in the budget situation means that, because of what we've done over four budgets, there'll be less debt for future generations, which is all the more important.

What we're seeing also from those opposite is an internal debate now playing out, in a way. It's quite remarkable. The former Liberal treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, has a book out in which—and this is one part of it I can sign up to—he roundly criticises the current leadership of the opposition and says it's just not good enough.

It's going through a trough. There's an existential crisis. But where I differ with the former treasurer is where he proposes a sharp uptick in the GST.

This lines up with what the previous speaker said. His contribution didn't mention this, but in his inaugural speech he backed in a 20 per cent GST—a doubling of the GST. The approach being supported by the prospective leader who's outside the chamber and the shadow Treasurer is a massive hike in the GST.

What is that going to do to the cost of living? What is that going to do to inflation? Is that seriously the response to inflation that those opposite are now going to work up?

Do those opposite think that petrol is too cheap and that we need to put a GST on it? Do those opposite think that construction costs in this country are too low and we need to add a GST onto them? Do they think that restaurants and takeaway food are too cheap and that we need to whack a GST onto them?

Let's see how this debate unfolds in the opposition. One can see that there are a range of views amongst those opposite. There are a range of views as to where taxes should go, but what isn't consistent across the positions being put by those opposite is exactly which taxes should be increased and how.

What is absolutely clear is that those opposite do not support cost-of-living supports. They went to the last election with higher taxes. Now we have a former treasurer suggesting a hike in the GST, and the current shadow Treasurer has in the past supported, on the public record, an increase in the GST.

It's very unclear how those opposite would, in any meaningful way, reduce cost-of-living pressures on people in the community. It really is the same old Liberal Party. This government has delivered concrete support for people.

We have, through a range of measures, seen people's wages increase, particularly those in the bottom quintile. We've seen people on the minimum wage get supports, and we have backed those in. We have seen people in industries where there have been longstanding needs for wage increases, including in the care economy, get significant pay increases, and this government has backed those in; this government has funded those.

We've also supported cost-of-living measures in a range of ways, including through cheaper medicines, right across the economy. Those opposite have opposed it at almost every turn. Instead, they now have over $100 billion in unfunded spending.

It just won't work.