Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The ideological dichotomy that exists in this building right now is probably at its greatest point in the time that I've been here—since September 2013. I, like many of my colleagues, came to this place to fight for smaller government. Why? Not because I'm enamoured with all things small—although my stature might say something about that!—but rather because I know small government means lower taxes.

I spoke about the ideological dichotomy. Those on the other side are not here to fight for small government. They're here enamoured with big government.

An opposition member: Good government!

And, by big government, I mean higher taxes. I'll take the interjection. My friend opposite says, 'Good government.' I'm not sure that the residents of his electorate would love the idea of good government representing big, fat taxes, but that seems to be their approach. And, when I say 'big, fat taxes', I mean—and I say to those opposite: you've have got a plan for more than $200 billion in additional taxes on the Australian economy. That's big and that's fat, and it's heavy, and what it means is it's hard for the Australian economy to grow. But, worse than raising taxes in that big, heavy and hard way, you've got a plan to spend money you haven't even earned yet. I appreciate you've got a long history of that, but I would have thought that, if you learnt anything through the mining tax debacle, you'd wait until you'd received the revenue before you spent it. What we know from the mining tax debacle is that those opposite managed to develop a system which delivered revenues which represented, effectively, a peanut of income, but they've spent, if you like, an elephant's meal of peanuts, and, obviously, we then end up in a situation where we have a shortfall.

Minister, I spent a lot of time playing cricket both in my younger years and as I grew older, and you might not be surprised to learn that I was a pretty good sledger. I often directed barbs at the opposition. They were often very negative and they were pretty pointed. But there were times when I'd have to rally my own team, and I would turn my comments to the positive. I would always remind my team that there's no reward without effort, and I would say it ball after ball, encouraging those slim, energetic fast bowlers to go a bit harder for me to get another wicket. If there's no reward without effort, by dint of that, the greatest reward should go to those who work the hardest. That was the inference for these young fast bowlers to draw: 'Work hard for me, boys, and work harder and harder because I want the rewards.' And the rewards in that game were wickets.

In this place, it's no different. We want to energise the Australian people. We want them rewarded for their hard work and their effort, and the best way, Minister, for us to do that is to take the personal income tax burden off them. I was very pleased to see, in the recent budget, that we're providing tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians and to reduce the cost pressures on households. It's a seven-year proposal for fairer, lower and simpler taxes. The plan will result in more working Australians paying lower tax, and, importantly, it will be enshrined in legislation—at least, that's our commitment. It has three parts. The first arm is tax relief for middle- and low-income earners now; the second arm, protecting from bracket creep what Australians earn; and the third arm, ensuring more Australians pay less tax by making personal taxes simpler. Under our proposal, Minister, 94 per cent of Australians will benefit and will pay no more than 32.5 cents in the dollar. This compares to 63 per cent if we don't make these changes. Minister, if it's about reward for effort, what can I say to those young men I played cricket with who are now in business about rewarding their effort?

See this speech in context