This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/may/10/federal-budget-tax-turnbull-defends-tax-plan-as-shorten-prepares-response-byelection-politics-live
The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 10 | Version 11 |
|---|---|
| Question time: 'shifty' the new slogan as government goes on attack | Question time: 'shifty' the new slogan as government goes on attack |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The Greens’ Rachel Siewert moved a motion in the Senate to increase Newstart by $75 a week, which was defeated, with Labor and the government combining to vote it down. | |
| “Despite the broad group of economists, business and social service organisations saying that the payment definitely needs to be increased, both major parties are showing cowardice,” Siewert said in a statement. | |
| “The rate of Newstart does not need to be ‘reviewed’; it needs to increase urgently, and the ALP knows this. | |
| “It has been well established that it is dangerously low and causing harm to jobseekers. It’s time for Bill Shorten to come off the fence.” | |
| For anyone wondering, I put the “rolled gold” count at 30 for that question time. | |
| And with Nemo’s stamp of approval, question time ends. | |
| Josh Frydenberg on his budget dixer “EVEN NEMO HAS GIVEN HIS APPROVAL TO THIS BUDGET”. | |
| Probably. We all know I don’t really listen to dixers. #deathtodixers | |
| Tony Burke attempts to table page 193 of the budget portfolio statement, which Ken Wyatt referenced in a previous answer, because it is the table of contents for digital health. | |
| Which sounds EXACTLY how I would have failed the bibliography section of my assignments. Who knew Wyatt and I had so much in common? | |
| Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt: | Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt: |
| I refer to his previous answer. Can the minister confirm that funding for residential and home care has been combined into a single-line item in the budget? And given this single-line item does not show anything close to the increase of $1.6bn for aged care the government has claimed, isn’t the minister perpetuating a cruel hoax on older Australians? | |
| Wyatt starts his answer the same way I used to fill out essay answers when I needed to meet a word limit, but I had no idea what to say. | |
| I thank the member for her question. And I certainly do. It’s great to talk about the needs of older Australians. It’s important that we talk about the way in which governments provide services. And it’s important that we use the resources effectively to provide choice within the mix of the total budget that we allocate. And our allocation of budget goes to very critical programs. | |
| Good to know. He moves on. | |
| Now, in response to your question, we paid in residential care for beds occupied. We provide opportunities for home care packages that allow people to have choices to live at home. That, when you combine the efforts of this government, we are at least providing real choice that allows Australians to either live at home or make the choice to live in residential care. Now, in doing that, what I considered – and what we considered was the forward years in terms of the number of places required in both. That the number of residential beds required will continue to increase substantially. The number of home care packages will also increase in those out years. | |
| Our commitment is to making sure that, across this nation, geographically and in capital cities, that we give absolute choices to people. And I want to identify resources that are best-placed to give people that choice of home care or residential care. And in our budget, we have given attention to the needs of people with high-need places, so that we give them the levels of support. And we continually wrap around other supports out of the programs that we have within the aged care portfolio. Because it makes no sense – yes, if you don’t understand the term “wrap around”, it just means that we provide, member for Lilley, services that help people who have a need. I can come and explain it to you very, very simply. Because you didn’t understand it when you were treasurer. Because, had you done that, we wouldn’t have the challenges for senior Australians we have now. | |
| Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt: | |
| My question is to the minister for aged care. Before the budget, Australians were told the government would axe the cut to the energy supplement, announce 20,000 new home care places, and invest billions more in aged care. Given none of this happened, hasn’t the minister perpetuated a cruel hoax on older Australians? | |
| Wyatt: | Wyatt: |
| I would suggest that the member, firstly, read the portfolio budget statement in respect of pages 193. That identifies ... over the forward years. It is a $bn investment. Now, when we consider – and let me go to another issue in this answer – a rolled-gold treasurer had responsibility for setting the budgets in home care packages under the Living Longer Living Better legislation. Had he looked at the Australian population pyramid, he would have made a different judgement in respect to the amount that was required. So, the member for Lilley needed to take that into consideration. | |
| What we’ve done is we have invested in aged care to the tune of $5bn. We’ve increased the number of residential care beds. We’ve increased the number in the forward years of home care places. We are providing programs and services to regional Australia that has a better outcome for people living in the bush. Our budget figures are accurate. They are not zero. | |
| I would suggest to the member for Franklin you read both my statement yesterday and the budget papers. Because we are making a serious commitment to senior Australians in this nation, across Commonwealth Home Programs, Home Care Packages and residential care, plus those supporting measures which give them the quality of life that they deserve, for the work that they have done for this nation. | |
| To scaremonger, to fearmonger and create angst in senior Australians is not appropriate. I have people who have now said they are not going into aged care because of the politicking that is occurring. Start to consider the needs of those who have the pathway into support services. | |
| But our budget measures are increasing. If you look at each year, we increase by approximately$1bn per year, and over the last four years we’ve increased the budget by $bn to make up for the deficit that was there when we came into government from a Labor government. There is a need for us to focus on their needs, and to ensure that they are given the opportunities. | |
| We move on to Paul Fletcher for a dixer, but a moth just flew into the office and I got distracted. | |
| Wait – he brings me back in with a mention of “Team Queensland”. According to emails that went out today, Peter Dutton is the leader of Team Queensland. I thought it was Cam Smith, but apparently that’s changed since I left. | |
| Another dixer. | Another dixer. |
| The budget is great guys. All hail the budget. #deathtodixers | The budget is great guys. All hail the budget. #deathtodixers |
| Jim Chalmers to Malcolm Turnbull: | Jim Chalmers to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| Why was the prime minister willing to separately legislate different stages of the government’s corporate tax cuts but is unwilling to do the same for tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners? Why is it always one rule for big business and another for low and middle income earners? Isn’t the prime minister the only person standing in the way of tax cuts for ordinary Australians from 1 July? | |
| Turnbull punts it to Scott Morrison: | Turnbull punts it to Scott Morrison: |
| We’ve put the whole enterprise tax plan to this parliament. We put that in this House of Representatives and it was passed by this House. And we’ve done exactly the same thing here, Mr Speaker. And I say to the member – and if they give leave, we’ll be happy to debate this bill right now, Mr Speaker. Why don’t you give us leave and we’ll pass it now, the whole thing? Come on! Let’s have the debate. Let’s pass the bill! Shall I seek leave, Mr Speaker, to bring on that motion of business? | |
| We’ll have that opportunity very shortly, if they so desire, Mr Speaker. We gave them that opportunity the other day, and the shadow treasurer scurried under the table there, Mr Speaker, like the little rat he is, Mr Speaker. He’s got under there ... | |
| He is made to withdraw the rat comment, and does. | He is made to withdraw the rat comment, and does. |
| I would hate to offend the sensibilities of the member for McMahon [Chris Bowen], Mr Speaker. We know what a precious flower he is, Mr Speaker. We know what a petal he is. But, Mr Speaker, when it comes to this issue, I have a question for the Labor party, and I know the answer, so it’s rhetorical. They, Mr Speaker, do not want to act on bracket creep in this country. | |
| That’s what they’re saying. They have been shifty all week on this, as shifty as the leader of the opposition. They’re hedging their bets, they’re saying, “We’ll support this. Maybe we’ll support that.” The Australian people just want a straight answer from the Labor party. Do you support lower taxes for all Australians? Simple question. Or are you just gonna – are you gonna be stuck in your rut of envy and bitterness and want to punish Australians, who are just working hard and seeking to get on, Mr Speaker? | |
| The Labor Party, when it comes to tax, are rolled-gold failures. Absolute rolled-gold failures. And they’re led by a rolled-gold failure. | |
| He delivers it in much the same way as I imagine Donald Trump yells at the television while watching Saturday Night Live. | |
| Right, after a discussion in the office about what the convicts in chain gangs, as well as the Indigenous people and early immigrants, in particular the Chinese, would have thought about the statement that this country was “not built on envy and bitterness”, we get back to it. | Right, after a discussion in the office about what the convicts in chain gangs, as well as the Indigenous people and early immigrants, in particular the Chinese, would have thought about the statement that this country was “not built on envy and bitterness”, we get back to it. |
| Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull: | Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| Can the prime minister confirm that under his tax plan a nurse who earns $50,000 will have the same marginal tax rate as a lawyer who earns $200,000 a year? And how is that fair? | Can the prime minister confirm that under his tax plan a nurse who earns $50,000 will have the same marginal tax rate as a lawyer who earns $200,000 a year? And how is that fair? |
| Turnbull: | Turnbull: |
| I thank the honourable member for his question. Under the revised tax scales at the end of the seven-year plan, the 45c threshold comes in at $200,000, so the marginal tax rate there on is 45c in the dollar. Plus, of course, the Medicare levy. So, the 32.5c marginal rate goes from $41,000 to $200,000...” | I thank the honourable member for his question. Under the revised tax scales at the end of the seven-year plan, the 45c threshold comes in at $200,000, so the marginal tax rate there on is 45c in the dollar. Plus, of course, the Medicare levy. So, the 32.5c marginal rate goes from $41,000 to $200,000...” |
| [Can I direct members to] ... the Grattan report, which they’ve quoted earlier. And I just note that this states here, once fully implemented, “the personal income tax plan doesn’t change the progressivety of the tax system much. Overall, those on high incomes will pay a similar proportion of total tax revenues, with or without the plan. | [Can I direct members to] ... the Grattan report, which they’ve quoted earlier. And I just note that this states here, once fully implemented, “the personal income tax plan doesn’t change the progressivety of the tax system much. Overall, those on high incomes will pay a similar proportion of total tax revenues, with or without the plan. |
| Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: | Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: |
| I refer to Grattan Institute modelling into the government’s personal income tax scheme released a short time ago. Can the treasurer confirm that $15bn of the annual $25bn cost of the government’s scheme will come from collecting less tax from the top 20% of income earners? Treasurer, how is this fair? | I refer to Grattan Institute modelling into the government’s personal income tax scheme released a short time ago. Can the treasurer confirm that $15bn of the annual $25bn cost of the government’s scheme will come from collecting less tax from the top 20% of income earners? Treasurer, how is this fair? |
| Morrison: | Morrison: |
| In 2015-16, those on the top tax bracket paid 30.3% of all personal income tax collected. And under the government’s plan, Treasury estimates those on the top tax bracket will pay around 36% of all personal income tax collected in 2024-25. As the prime minister was pointing out before, someone earning $205,000 will be earning five times more but paying 13 times more tax, 13 times more tax, Mr Speaker. | In 2015-16, those on the top tax bracket paid 30.3% of all personal income tax collected. And under the government’s plan, Treasury estimates those on the top tax bracket will pay around 36% of all personal income tax collected in 2024-25. As the prime minister was pointing out before, someone earning $205,000 will be earning five times more but paying 13 times more tax, 13 times more tax, Mr Speaker. |
| So, under this plan, under this plan, the progressivety of our tax system is well protected and well respected. | So, under this plan, under this plan, the progressivety of our tax system is well protected and well respected. |
| Mr Speaker, the problem with the Labor party is they don’t understand that this country was not built on envy and bitterness, and our tax system shouldn’t be built on envy and bitterness either. Those opposite, the Labor party, think that the only way that people on low and middle incomes can do better is if they make people on other incomes do worse. This is the flat-earth thinking that chokes economies, Mr Speaker, and that’s why the Labor party cannot be trusted to run what will be estimated, over the next four years, a $2tr economy. | Mr Speaker, the problem with the Labor party is they don’t understand that this country was not built on envy and bitterness, and our tax system shouldn’t be built on envy and bitterness either. Those opposite, the Labor party, think that the only way that people on low and middle incomes can do better is if they make people on other incomes do worse. This is the flat-earth thinking that chokes economies, Mr Speaker, and that’s why the Labor party cannot be trusted to run what will be estimated, over the next four years, a $2tr economy. |
| I wouldn’t trust the leader of the opposition with $2, Mr Speaker. And yet he walks around here, thumping himself about on issues of rolled-gold guarantees. Well, he might think he’s the golden member of this parliament, Mr Speaker, but he’s a rolled-gold failure as a member of this parliament. | I wouldn’t trust the leader of the opposition with $2, Mr Speaker. And yet he walks around here, thumping himself about on issues of rolled-gold guarantees. Well, he might think he’s the golden member of this parliament, Mr Speaker, but he’s a rolled-gold failure as a member of this parliament. |
| The Grattan Institute has released its modelling of the government’s $140bn, seven-year, personal income tax plan. What did it find? When fully implemented $15bn of the annual $25bn cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20% of income earners #auspol pic.twitter.com/sIgjpsEqC7 | The Grattan Institute has released its modelling of the government’s $140bn, seven-year, personal income tax plan. What did it find? When fully implemented $15bn of the annual $25bn cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20% of income earners #auspol pic.twitter.com/sIgjpsEqC7 |
| Opposition leader Bill Shorten in the eye of the rolled gold storm during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Jt99W1F8jq | Opposition leader Bill Shorten in the eye of the rolled gold storm during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Jt99W1F8jq |
| Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull: | Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| Is the prime minister aware that on Sky News today, the CEO of the Grattan Institute said the government’s income tax scheme includes “a small tax cut for low income earners and a very large tax cut for high income earners”? Can the prime minister detect a pattern here? Is this why the prime minister won’t give a straight answer on the cost of his policies? | Is the prime minister aware that on Sky News today, the CEO of the Grattan Institute said the government’s income tax scheme includes “a small tax cut for low income earners and a very large tax cut for high income earners”? Can the prime minister detect a pattern here? Is this why the prime minister won’t give a straight answer on the cost of his policies? |
| Turnbull: | Turnbull: |
| All of the details of the impact of the personal income tax cuts on different levels of income and different households are all set out in the budget papers and accompanying documents. And it is very, very clear that tax relief goes, in the first instance, to people on low and middle income, and subsequently it goes to the broad range of income earners other than those, of course, the only rate – the rate that is not affected is the 45% rate and the threshold is lifted to $200,000 in seven years’ time. What will the cost - the 10-year cost has been given already by the treasurer. | All of the details of the impact of the personal income tax cuts on different levels of income and different households are all set out in the budget papers and accompanying documents. And it is very, very clear that tax relief goes, in the first instance, to people on low and middle income, and subsequently it goes to the broad range of income earners other than those, of course, the only rate – the rate that is not affected is the 45% rate and the threshold is lifted to $200,000 in seven years’ time. What will the cost - the 10-year cost has been given already by the treasurer. |
| But the point is – the point is that their income tax system remains, in terms of the distribution of the burden, as it is today, where the largest share of the tax is paid by those on higher incomes. And I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave the member for Melbourne a moment ago. | But the point is – the point is that their income tax system remains, in terms of the distribution of the burden, as it is today, where the largest share of the tax is paid by those on higher incomes. And I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave the member for Melbourne a moment ago. |
| Peter Dutton is up next for his daily dixer - YOU ARE ALL REALLY, REALLY SAFE. | Peter Dutton is up next for his daily dixer - YOU ARE ALL REALLY, REALLY SAFE. |