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

Dutton criticised the budget as reckless spending that added to a trillion dollars of national debt while failing to address housing or energy crises. Dutton argued the government had neglected defence spending and national security during a precarious global period. Dutton claimed the opposition offered a plan to reduce migration, ban foreign buyers, and improve energy reliability to restore hope for families.

Marles defended the government's fiscal management, stating they had delivered two budget surpluses and reduced the projected deficit by $207 billion compared to Liberal forecasts. Marles argued the tax cuts and cost-of-living measures directly assisted those most affected by economic pressures. Marles accused the opposition of consistently voting against lower taxes and relief measures while offering no constructive alternatives.

Bandt supported the bill but described it as a missed opportunity for more substantial cost-of-living relief, such as including dental care in Medicare. Bandt argued that large corporations were paying insufficient tax while everyday Australians faced rising rents and mortgage costs. Bandt called for immediate legislative action on student debt and bulk-billing incentives rather than delaying relief until after the election.

Chaney supported the tax cuts as a short-term measure to address bracket creep but argued they were insufficient for long-term reform. Chaney advocated for indexing tax brackets to inflation to prevent automatic tax increases and ensure government spending accountability. Chaney stated that both major parties avoided genuine tax reform to maintain access to hidden revenue streams.

Joyce criticised the budget as poorly constructed and lacking focus on productive assets and national security. Joyce argued that high national debt and expensive intermittent energy sources undermined economic stability and regional prosperity. Joyce claimed the government failed to address the destitution in regional areas and neglected the importance of agriculture and defence in national planning.

minister

Burke argued that the opposition had repeatedly voted against measures designed to ease the cost of living, including tax cuts, wage growth, and cheaper medicines. Burke stated that the bill would provide an average tax cut of $43 per week in 2026-27 and $50 per week in 2027-28. Burke contended that the opposition's voting record demonstrated a commitment to higher taxes and lower wages. Burke moved that the question be now put to force a vote on the bill's principles. Burke asserted that members would be held accountable for their votes on whether to support tax relief for all Australians.