House debates

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011; Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011

Second Reading

9:46 am

Photo of Tony AbbottTony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Ralph Willis: he must be one of the most humiliated men in the country, passed over—Peter Walsh; all of them—by his current parliamentary colleagues because the gold standard for fiscal responsibility was the Howard government. The gold standard for fiscal responsibility is provided by this coalition.

Obviously in most parts of Australia the floodwaters have receded, the clean-up has been largely completed, the reconstruction is underway. But the emotional scars will remain with the people who have been through this experience for many a long time. The physical scars on the land may be healing, but the emotional scars remain. It is important that members of this parliament do not forget the people who have suffered just because the cameras have moved on. And we will not forget them. We on this side of the parliament will not forget them. If there is any difficulty that people are having accessing reconstruction grants, we want to know about it. If there is any difficulty that they are having accessing the reconstruction loans, we are with them in pleading for justice. If they are having trouble with their insurers, we are on their side because it is very important that all institutions work with people rather than against them at a time like this. People are understandably conscious at a time like this of just how unfair life can be, and we do not want any sense of unfairness made worse by an unfeeling or an uncaring government, unfeeling or uncaring financial institutions.

While the opposition have naturally supported relief measures by all levels of government, we think this government could have gone further to assist people. We particularly think that this government could have gone further to assist the small businesses which are the lifeblood of our economy. You cannot have a community without a strong economy to sustain it, and when communities are suffering then it is urgent and important that the small businesses that are the lifeblood of their economies are succoured and sustained.

In order to help the small businesses of flood ravaged areas we have proposed a three-month tax holiday. I call on the government, even at this late stage, to adopt that idea of the coalition. We have also called for the extension of concessional loans to businesses that have been flood impacted but not actually physically damaged. We all know that there are many, many businesses in flood impacted areas that have not been physically damaged. Their premises were not inundated. They did not lose their roofs. Still they have lost business. There is no produce for them to carry. There are no customers for them to serve. Those businesses should also be assisted and that is why it is very important that those concessional loans be made available to them.

The problem with this tax is that it hurts people who have already suffered enough. The tax will fall on the shoulders of donors; the tax will fall on the shoulders of the volunteers who flocked to help their friends, their neighbours, their fellow Queenslanders and Victorians in trouble. And, despite the denials of the Prime Minister, this tax will also fall on victims. There are many people who have lost property, who have had loved ones placed into all sorts of difficult circumstances who are still paying this tax. The only people who will not pay this tax are people whose homes have been impacted and therefore are getting the Centrelink payment. So this is a fundamentally unfair tax as well as being wrong in principle, as well as being bad public policy.

This legislation and the respective attitudes of government and opposition to Queensland flood reconstruction has yet again highlighted a fundamental difference between the two sides of this parliament. We think that government should live within its means; members opposite think that government should put its hand deeper and deeper into the people’s pockets. This is not the way to go. On this bill, as so often will happen in the course of the coming year as the government bids in this parliament to impose tax after tax, the battle lines will be drawn between a government which is addicted to tax and a coalition which is always searching to ensure that government lives within its means. As each day passes, it is clearer and clearer that we have a Prime Minister who has never seen a tax she did not like and never had a tax she would not hike. That is the truth and that is why we should oppose this bill.

Comments

No comments