Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

'Tax' is not a dirty word. Tax is the price that we pay for a civilised society. So, when legislation comes before this place to deal with a budget and to deal with tax, the No. 1 question that all of us should be asking is: is this going to help make Australia a more equal place? Is this going to defend egalitarianism in Australia? When they say 'tax cuts', I hear 'hospital cuts'. Tax cuts are school cuts. Tax cuts mean less money in the government purse to lift the level of Newstart, which is currently condemning people to poverty.

We have an obligation to defend egalitarianism in this country and to make sure that Australia remains a place where, no matter how much money you've got in your pocket, if you get sick you can go to the hospital or the doctor and you won't be stung with a big Medicare gap fee between what Medicare pays and what the doctor charges. We in this place have an obligation to make sure that our public schools are world standard and that, when you send your kid to a public school, you're not stung with so-called voluntary fees that add up to hundreds of dollars and, in some cases, thousands of dollars that increasingly make a mockery of the idea that we have free universal education in this country. We have an obligation to say to people who are dealing with rising unemployment and underemployment—we have a crisis in this country where nearly one in three young people either doesn't have a job or doesn't have the hours of work that they want—that, while they are looking for a job, we will support them with Newstart at a level that is not so far below the poverty line that it becomes life-crushing and a barrier to even finding work.

We have an obligation to say the priority should be services, not tax cuts. The Greens would rather see a budget that focuses on services, not tax cuts. Instead it seems that this budget and the next election are very quickly becoming about one thing: it's turning into a tax cut arms race. We have a neoliberal macho 'mine's bigger than yours' tax cut contest going on at the moment, which is nothing short of a bribe-fest. For many people it will mean getting maybe $10 a week in their pocket. But that's going to be eaten up very quickly because we're not putting enough money into Medicare, and the cost of going to the doctor is going up and up. Or it's going to be eaten up quickly because your power bills go up because we no longer regulate energy prices in this country. When you ask people whether they would prefer to have a tax cut that gives them a few dollars in their pocket that will disappear almost as soon as it hits or greater investment in services like public schools and our public hospitals and looking after people who fall through the cracks, most would say they would prefer that the money be spent making Australia a more equal place than to have a tax cut that is going to disappear the moment it hits their pocket.

Most people—but not the government—say they want to look after low-income earners. There is a very straightforward way of doing that. Let's lift Newstart and youth allowance so that people aren't stuck in a poverty trap. Let's lift the minimum wage so that we don't grow a class of working poor in this country. It's at the stage now where you can be a full-time worker on a minimum wage and be below the poverty line. We are becoming a US-style society where even a full-time job is no longer a guarantee of security and no longer a guarantee that you won't be in poverty. That's where we're heading as a society. If we wanted to look after low-income earners we'd lift the minimum wage as well as lifting Newstart.

One of the best ways of making sure low-income earners are looked after is by making health care, education and all the other social services that people rely on genuinely free and available to them—no extra little out-of-pocket costs or voluntary costs or gap fees to pay. Make these services universally available. The best way to do that is through publicly funded health care, publicly funded schools and a universal system. That's how you get better bang for your buck and that's how you can ensure fairness.

It comes as no surprise that this government, which takes its riding instructions from big business and from the top end of town, marches in here and says: 'Here in this bill we want to end the progressive taxation system in Australia once and for all. We want to get to a stage where someone who is earning less than the minimum wage pays the same tax rate as a CEO on $200,000.' That's what this bill will do. This bill will say, 'By the time that phase 3 of the tax cuts kicks in, someone who's earning the minimum wage, or even less than the minimum wage, gets hit with the same tax rate as someone who's on $200,000.' We have a tradition in this country that says the more you earn the higher your tax rate is, because you can afford to give a bit more, because that helps make Australia more equal. That is under direct challenge from this government.

The fact that this bill would give a $7,000 tax benefit to a millionaire tells you everything that you need to know about this bill. This bill is about delivering for the top end. If you want to know why the cost of going to the doctor keeps going up or those so-called voluntary school fees keep going up, part of the reason is that the Liberal government wants to give a $7,000 tax break to a millionaire. That's ultimately why the government is hitting the poor: so that it can hand that money over to the rich. That's why the Greens have said consistently: 'We will not engage in this move that will increase inequality in society. We will not support the government in this endeavour. We want services over tax cuts, and we will not support you in this move.'

But it hasn't taken all that long, after the government came out, fired the starting gun and started talking about tax cuts, for the opposition to be cowed into submission and to join them in this tax cuts arms race. One of the most distressing things is that straight out of the blocks the opposition said, 'We'll wave through phase 1 of this.'

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

I hear an interjection saying this is about low-income earners. I don't know what definition you're using, but I find it hard to believe that someone on $110,000 or $120,000 counts as a low-income earner. That's what the opposition has said it's prepared to wave through straightaway: 'Let's take money that could be going to schools and hospitals and use it to help out people on $110,000 or $120,000.' That's not a good use of money. If the opposition were serious about looking after low-income earners, as I've said, the best way to do it is to use the money that they want to give to people on $110,000 or $120,000 and instead put that into reducing the cost of going to see the doctor or any fees that you might face if you end up in hospital, or helping lift people who are on Newstart. That would be a way of making Australia more equal.

But it gets worse because, although they came straight out of the blocks and said that, they then said that today—potentially the vote comes on today—they're also now open to the option of waving through phase 2 of the government's tax cuts. For those who don't know what that means or what that would involve, let us be absolutely clear: we are talking about tax cuts for MPs to the extent of $2,000 a year. We are talking about tax cuts for people who are CEOs and tax cuts for millionaires, because by changing the tax rates and waving through phase 2 you're giving $2,000 to everyone who earns, like us, $200,000 and over.

That is not what an opposition should be doing. The Greens will stand up to this government and say, 'We are not having a bar of it, because you, the government, are threatening the very foundations of egalitarianism in this country.' But it would be nice to have a bit of help from the opposition. The clue's in the name. It's in your job title: oppose. When the government stands up and says, 'We want to give tax cuts to people who are on $200,000,' maybe it's a good idea to say, 'No, there are better ways of spending the money.'

I don't believe that we can sit here in good conscience and vote for a tax cut for MPs and people who earn more than us at the same time as the cost of going to the doctor keeps going up or the cost of sending your kids to school keeps going up or while there are people living in poverty even when they're working full time. That would be a shame. That would be a stain on everyone who votes for this bill today. They are prepared to wave through a tax cut for people on $200,000, either here or in the other place, while we have people who are living below the poverty line, even while they're working full time—people who can't afford to put a roof over their head.

What is at stake here is the principle of the welfare state as we know it. This is about saying, 'We do not want to go down the US road of dog eat dog and everyone being left by themselves, where you can work a full-time job or perhaps even work two or three jobs and still find yourself without enough money to make ends meet. We don't want to become a US style society where, if you get sick, they check your credit card before they check your Medicare card. We do not want to become a US style society where the quality of the education you get depends largely on how much money you've got.' To ensure that Australia remains egalitarian and ensure that we reduce inequality at a time when inequality is at a 70-year high, we are going to need to stand up to the powerful. We are going to need to stand up to those who are able to use lawyers to minimise their tax. We're going to need to stand up to the big corporations, but we're especially going to need to say, 'Progressive taxation must remain a foundation of the Australian tax system.' And we must say with a crystal clear voice, 'In this parliament, we want services over tax cuts.' That means voting against this bill and it means coming clean about what everyone is going to do on phase 2 and phase 3.

We could go to an election very soon, and I sincerely hope that this rotten government are turfed out. But what we've got to be clear about is what we're going to replace them with. Are we going to replace this rotten government with another mob who also want to give tax cuts to people on $200,000 and also want to give tax cuts to millionaires? Now is the time to stand up to this government. Instead of joining in a tax-cut arms race, say proudly, 'No. In Australia we value the welfare state, and social democracy means that sometimes it is better not to have a tax cut and, instead, put that money into services.' Every time that we join in the race and say that we want to have tax cuts for people who are earning over $200,000, we eat away at the basis of the welfare state.

I won't be supporting this bill. I want to see services, not tax cuts. Let's change the debate and get back to a basic principle: tax is not a dirty word. The question is: what do we spend our tax on? And, if we can spend our tax on universal schools, health care and making sure that people are not out of pocket when they send their kids to schools or when they go to the GP, the Australian people will thank us for it. It's a much better use of money than putting $10 in people's pockets, only for them to find it disappears the moment that it is put there.

See this speech in context