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

11:48 am

Photo of Don RandallDon Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I have great regard for the member opposite, but I would hate to have to call a quorum on the next speaker from the Labor Party because of time taken. So, people who were going to be hit yesterday are not going to be hit today. That is all I am saying. But it goes further. This sort of ad hoc decision about those who are going to pay the levy is further exemplified in the article by Andrew Probyn in today’s West Australian:

Discrepancies in the treatment of WA disaster victims emerged … this month when the West Australian revealed Gascoyne flood victims were denied emergency relief payments from Centrelink …

After the West reported, Ms Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced those affected by the Gascoyne flood would be eligible for payments.

Here are two occasions when those who were affected by natural disasters were going to be left high and dry—that is probably not the right term for people in the Gascoyne, because they now have their third flood coming through, and I understand that Cyclone Carlos is hanging off Carnarvon today—but, when the media gets on to the Prime Minister when she feels some sort of sensitivity towards this, she changes her mind. Is this how decisions are being made by this terrible government that is going to impose another tax on us—ad hoc decisions? If you go to the media and make a fuss about it, the Prime Minister backflips.

We have seen her backflips in this place. She announced that she was going to cancel several green programs. We know there is a green alliance with the government in this House, and the tail is wagging the dog. Along comes Senator Brown, some of the Greens say they have some leverage over the Prime Minister and they reintroduce some of the green initiatives that she had already cancelled. So, cancel it one day and reinstate it the next. Along comes the member for Denison—the same thing: lean on the Prime Minister, she changes her mind and reinstates it. Is this how we have government in this country? Is this how this levy will be applied, depending on who makes the most noise and who does not? Will it apply to people affected previously? Will it apply to any future disaster in Australia? God forbid we have another event—another cyclone. The member for Paterson is sitting here—there was the Newcastle earthquake. Will those people be exempt? Is it going to be months ahead or years ahead? It is so sloppy and out of control that we have a situation where we are governed by press release and media embarrassment of the Prime Minister.

In the short time allotted to me, I am pleased to say that I wrote to the Prime Minister previously—certainly well before yesterday—on this issue, and that saved some of the 72 people who lost their homes in my electorate and some of the 30-odd people whose homes were partially damaged from having to pay this levy. As I said, the problem is that the government have decided that they will find $1.2 billion from a levy and the rest from cuts. The cuts have been reversed and they do not know how much it will actually cost. They then say, ‘We’ll find some further budget cuts.’ Government has the capacity to pay for and deal with natural disasters. This government should do that. They should talk about spending priorities. For example, the $960 billion spent on illegal arrivals to this country over one year is the amount that was spent by the Howard government over its entire term. If you stopped the boats, you could find most of your spending from the illegal migration program, yet as a priority they still allow illegal arrivals to come. There is no hesitation in paying all the costs associated with those arrivals, yet they are willing to tax the Australian people with another levy because they do not want to attack some of their sacred cows, like the illegal migration program.

Comments

No comments