Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Inequality, or lack thereof, is an important measure, though not the only one, of how successful your society is. It is an indicator that all have access to equality of opportunity and the choice of how they want to live their lives, respectful of the choices of others. The awful truth is that after nearly seven decades of government funded poverty programs we have hardly moved the needle. Many social programs during this time have done nothing more than entrench poverty from generation to generation.

Those opposite typically provide two solutions to alleviating inequality. The first is increase spending on social welfare programs; the second, a more distributive tax system. It is simply a fact that if you are solely reliant on the welfare system in today's Australia, it is highly likely that your health and education outcomes will be substantially lower than the rest of our community. You will have a shorter lifespan and higher rates of crime—both violent and non-violent—while at the same time lowering the probability that you will ever form a family. And, just for good measure, the likelihood of the system passing these outcomes to your children is incredibly high. This system costs currently $154 billion a year. But this is not about money; this is about saving lives. When we on this side talk about reforming welfare we are not talking about saving money; we are talking about saving people's lives.

Then we have the tax system, usually encapsulated in the slogan 'the rich are not paying their fair share'. But let's look at the facts. According to Ken Henry's review of Australia's tax system, we have the most progressive tax system in the world. It is 19 times more distributive than the OECD average, and its transfer payment system is 12 times higher than that of France's. The 2012 ABS figures tell us that the top 20 per cent of income earners in Australia are the only ones making a net positive contribution to the states' tax system. For every dollar they paid in, they got 30 cents back, compared to the $324 the lowest 20 per cent of income earners received in services—a thousand times greater.

Despite dedicating hundreds of billions of dollars to decreasing inequality, those opposite say things have gotten worse, and yet their only answer is to keep doing more of the same—not even worried by the fact that according to their very own motion here today it has not improved the problem that they claim to be worried about. Those opposite can talk ad nauseam about inequality, because they need people to feel that they are victims—supplicants to the state. Under no circumstances will they talk about the inequality of opportunity that their policies have created.

On this side of the House, we believe in standing up for hardworking Australians who aspire to a better future for their friends, their families and this great country: a modern and dynamic society that believes in helping people up, not dragging them down. Labor says they are worried about inequality. However, in the last month we have seen Labor propose a tax rate for backpackers that would make foreign workers more attractive to employers than Australians. We have a bill before this parliament to make office bearers of both employer groups and unions more accountable to their members, yet Labor currently supports laws that give millionaire shareholders greater rights to how their companies are run than workers such as hospital cleaners have on unions, and they have the temerity to come in here and lecture us on inequality.

Let's talk about that before talking about CEO remuneration that is already subject to disclosure laws, that even Warren Buffett believes has done little other than drive up CEO salaries. We would welcome your support for improving the quality and transparency of governance of billions of dollars of funds that belong to some of the lowest-paid people in Australia. Within equality, as with so much else, if you want real solutions you need to look at the facts.

See this speech in context