Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Many members of this House made some very eloquent and heart-wrenching speeches in this place when speaking on the condolence motion with respect to the Queensland floods. I did not contribute in that debate, so, firstly, I take the opportunity to express my sympathy and my condolences to the families who lost family members as a result of the Queensland floods and also to all of the families who perhaps lost their home, their possessions or suffered in any way as a result of floods. I can only imagine that the experience would have been horrendous for them. I was not there but—as, I assume, most members of this House—saw the footage at the time, read the newspaper reports and heard the stories firsthand about what was occurring within the communities.

Regrettably, similar events seem to be occurring right throughout the nation. I extend the same feelings of empathy towards communities wherever they might be that are also going through extreme weather events causing them grief. Right now we know only too well what is occurring to our New Zealand friends in Christchurch. Again, looking at the footage, all I can say is that our thoughts are with those people, and right now the most important thing is to provide them with every bit of support we can to ensure that we can help as many people who have suffered, and are still suffering, as we can. As we all know, life continues and the task ahead is to rebuild infrastructure, homes and lives in any community affected. The government has, through the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, and related bill, proposed a very responsible plan to do that for the people of Queensland. It is responsible because it spreads the burden of the cost of recovery fairly, evenly and right across all sectors of the Australian community.

In the brief time I have available today, I want to address three matters. Firstly, the merits of the levy itself; secondly, the opposition’s alternative strategy; and, thirdly, the likelihood of further destruction because of extreme weather events in the future. I turn to the merits of the levy. When a disaster occurs, to the extent that it is possible, the burden of recovery should be spread as evenly as practicable across the nation to those who can most afford it. This levy does exactly that. It does that because anyone earning less than $50,000 a year does not pay any levy at all. For those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, the levy will be 0.5 per cent of their taxable income. For those earning over $100,000, the rate will be 0.5 per cent for income between $50,000 and $100,000 and one per cent for income above $100,000. In fact, 50 per cent of taxpayers pay nothing; 60 per cent of taxpayers pay less than a dollar a week, and eligible victims of the flood will also not pay the levy. The levy is for the 2011-12 financial year only. It proposes to raise $1.8 billion, with the balance of the funding estimated to be around $5.6 billion, not including the effects of Cyclone Yasi, coming from expenditure savings, deferrals and cuts.

When budget cuts are made the costs are borne by those communities who would have benefited the most from the program from which the budget cuts are made. In other words, a narrow group of Australians wear most of the burden. That is the inequity of the opposition’s proposal to fund the reconstruction entirely from budget cuts. That is why a combination of budget cuts and a modest levy is the fairest response to meeting the costs. It spreads the burden as evenly as possible across all sectors of the community. I have heard speaker after speaker on the other side come in here and criticise the economic management of this government. Interestingly, economists from the ANZ, Westpac, the CBA, CommSec, Citibank and Rismark have all commented that it is a responsible response to meeting the costs of the reconstruction required in Queensland. I have not heard any members opposite suggesting that they are better economists than the economists who represent all of those leading financial institutions.

The second matter I want to refer to is the opposition’s alternative proposal to fund the entire reconstruction from cuts. What has been interesting in the course of this debate—and I have listened to many speakers from the other side—is that I have not heard one come into this place and defend the opposition’s alternative proposal. They have come in here and criticised the government and they have come in here and criticised past actions of the government in other areas, but not one of them has come in here and specifically defended the alternative proposal to find the funds to rebuild Queensland.

See this speech in context