Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was wonderful to hear the shadow Treasurer before the parliament as he lamented the rate of tax that's paid in this country. Make no mistake—no ambiguity—I am for lower taxes, because taxes are about empowering individuals and families to take responsibility for themselves. And I absolutely believe taxes in this country are too high and I'll continue to argue that taxes should be cut. It's one of the reasons we went to the last election opposing Labor's plan for nearly $400 billion more in taxes. And the temerity, the chutzpah, the hubris, the arrogance, whatever you want to call it, of the shadow Treasurer, who was the architect of that plan with the then shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, to then say, 'They're taxing too much,' this side of the chamber is, frankly, farcical.

When you propose $400 billion more in taxes on the Australian people, the Australian community, Australian jobs, Australian workers, Australian small businesses, mums and dads all around the country, as Labor did before the last election—and, let's face it, whether honestly or secretively, will do the same before the next election—to come into this chamber and argue against this government, which has consistently said, 'Where there are taxes and we can cut them, we will,' including the low- and middle-income tax offset in this bill about restructuring the entire base of the tax system and flattening out income tax, is, frankly, absurd.

We stand for lower taxes—as a party, as a movement and as a principle—and we do so, as I said before, not because we can have an argument about the GDP-to-tax ratio, although that's very important, but because it's actually about power. The foundational difference is the difference between the world views that sit in this chamber, on this side versus that side of the chamber. People on this side of the chamber see the nation governed from the citizen, the family and the community up. We want to empower individuals, families and communities. The Labor Party has a different vision for the country—and they're entitled to that; it's part of the great contest of ideas, which is one I believe we should have, and all policies should be anchored from that basic proposition. They want to empower Canberra, unions and increasingly organised capital through superannuation funds that they have influence over so that they can run a corporate state, so that they can run a nation in the hands of the few with a claim of benefits for the many. But of course we know that the more concentrated is economic, political, social and cultural power the more it favours those who dictate and wield that power—it's just that they think that should be them.

We're proud of our achievement on taxes. But I absolutely agree that there's more to do. That's in part what this bill is about. It's about saying, 'Hey, we're going to give a tax offset to low- and middle-income earners.' Why? Because we want these individuals to be able to be the masters of their own destiny, to choose their future and to be empowered as much as possible. And I'd hope there's more to come—much more to come—because the more power that's in the hip pocket of Australians, the more we're empowering them to make choices about their own lives rather than having it imposed on or dictated to them by bureaucrats or politicians based in this chamber. It's quite a good thing, really, when you think about it—and I hope you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, although I suspect you have been, for a very long period of time, throughout your long and distinguished service in this chamber.

That's at the core of what this bill is trying to achieve—and will achieve. There are of course other measures, around reforming ASIC and the fringe benefits tax and various other issues around incentives. One of the critical things that's also in this bill is that we're Australians through all stages of their life. Mr Deputy Speaker, you'll be well aware that one of the big concerns I have is around making sure that Australians have proper housing so that they're able to have the security and the opportunity that they need throughout their working life and their retirement. One of the great challenges in housing—and there are many in this nation at the moment, particularly for young Australians looking to buy their first home—is making sure there's available supply in the marketplace. A critical part of that conversation relates to people having access to housing supply that reflects their stage of life. The reality is that a lot of the housing stock that traditionally has been built has been targeted specifically at people during a particular stage of their life, often where there are multiple inhabitants, because they're having children with their spouse, raising their family. But of course people don't always need three-, four- or five-bedroom homes; lots of people need just a one-bedroom apartment, or a two-bedroom apartment—and of course that's often the property people purchase when they're youngest, and then they graduate up as they need to, and they might sell the property and reverse back to having smaller accommodation as they downsize. As you may recall, there are incentives in the budget to encourage people to downsize in order to open up that housing stock for the next generation as they have children.

But of course there can also be circumstances where people decide they need to downsize further than perhaps a small unit or apartment, because they may become increasingly dependent on their families for care, or because of their economic circumstances. There might have been tragedy, such as losing their spouse. So, they turn to things like granny flats, as we colloquially refer to them, often co-located with their families so that they can have economic and financial security as well as household security and mutual care and support from those they love and care about. Currently there's a CGT arrangement on granny flats, which is discouraging, because the co-location of flats on existing properties could actually help bring families together. So, we're reforming that to encourage Australians to be able to care for and love each other through mutual cohabitation on a single site. This is very important because it will again free up the opportunity for people to move through the different stages of life based on their accommodation and their accommodation arrangements.

But we also want to make sure that young Australians are in the best position to be able to purchase their own home, and that's why freeing up capital is so important. The reality is there are lots of factors that drive house prices in this country—availability of supply, interest rates, planning and zoning regulations. The Reserve Bank of Australia has identified that up to a third of the costs of an apartment in Sydney come just from planning and zoning regulations alone. But the other one that comes at the expense of young Australians being able to buy a home is the complete economic perversion this parliament has sanctioned by prioritising superannuation ahead of homeownership. It's a form of economic insanity. Up until 1992, it was entirely logical—for literally the whole of human history up to 1992—that people saved for a deposit to buy their own home, started paying down their mortgage and built up other assets they could then save for their retirement. It was consistent with people's slipstream in life, completely consistent with securing their own home in order to be able to retire with dignity and surety and, of course, income, completely consistent with people's ambitions for the benefits that they enjoyed throughout their working life and their retirement. And then we changed that.

This parliament and previous parliaments have literally sanctioned a form of economic social engineering to put super before homes. It's mad. What are the consequences? Young Australians are less in a position to be able to buy their own home, homeownership rates are declining for every single age group except for people over the age of 65 in the top economic quintile, the rich are getting richer, and the asset-rich are getting even richer. And who is paying the price? It's new migrants and young Australians. I think that's absurd.

I want an Australia where everybody can realise their aspirations and their dreams. I want an Australia where everybody can move through the different stages of their life and the government is there to support them, not to deliberately and maliciously undermine them. I want an Australia where young Australians grow up with the ambition to purchase their own home and are able to. I want to support them and their families and provide them with the foundation of their economic security in their working life and in their retirement.

As I said, the whole path of human history until 1992 was home first, super second. But we know that has changed and now we put super before homes. It is mad. I know members of the Labor Party hate me saying it, because they know that Australians get this, too. You know who really gets it? It's young Australians who are struggling to save a deposit. What's the trade-off? Because we're putting super before homes, we're constantly increasing the taxpayer funded incentives to get young Australians into their first home, so we're publicly funding people's private purchase, privatising the gains and socialising the losses. Again, it's something the Labor Party and the Left used to oppose vehemently, and today it seems to be left to those on this side of the chamber to point out this self-evident, obvious truth. The more we pump into super, the more we have to pump into taxpayer benefits to enable young Australians to get into their own home, and they're actually similar in proportion to each other. This is how mad this policy is. You are literally using the tax system to underwrite people buying their own home, at the expense of the democratisation of both the ownership and the wealth distribution of the nation.

At least we on this side of the chamber are prepared to stand up and call out this fallacy and say it's wrong. Look at the opposition benches, and all you will face is a wall of noise and anger and repudiation and a fight every step of the way because what they want is more money to go into the funds that their mates control at your expense—at the expense of the people of Australia.

They think they know better. They've literally privatised huge sections of the social welfare system. They used to be opposed to that. Now on some points I agree with them and on some points I disagree. But the intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency that sits at the heart of their position is revealed by their motivations. They want to control the capital of this country and bring organised capital and organised workers together as part of a corporate estate, with big government and big business. They should hold their heads in shame.

See this speech in context