Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Events of the last week have demonstrated quite clearly why the Australian people decided to reject the Liberal-National coalition at the last election. The ordinary working Australians in my electorate of Bonner would be overwhelmed by the apparent positions that the coalition have adopted on the budget that has been put before us by Treasurer Wayne Swan. They portray themselves as great economic managers and as the great protectors of ordinary Australians but if we look at their reaction to this budget we see the remnants of a government that left us with a legacy of far too many interest rises, the highest inflation in 16 years and absolutely no plan or even political will to deal with the skills and infrastructure crises that we face.

They have opposed the government’s Fuelwatch scheme but wish to blow the country’s surplus by introducing a reduction in the fuel excise. A short term gain of 5c a litre is small compensation for the inevitable interest rate rises and inflation increases that would come if they embarked on this $22 billion raid of the surplus. They have definitely nailed their colours to the mast. Their desperate attempts to boost up a failing leader and to deal with a divided party mean that pensioners, seniors, families and those working Australians out there who are just trying to stay ahead financially, are going to have to pay. Their support for luxury cars and their stunt to cut fuel excise will blow the surplus. If they believe this is popular, what are they going to tell all those people doing it tough out there when inflation goes through the roof, when mortgages go up and when inevitably the cost of living rises astronomically? The opposition has no plan for and no means of managing the economy.

Alternatively, if they are going to provide a surplus, who in the electorate of Bonner is going to miss out as a result of their support for luxury car drivers? Who is going to miss out because the opposition leader would rather care for the Ferrari drivers and the Bentley owners of this world? Do I tell the hardworking two-income families that they are going to miss out on their child care tax rebate increase? Do I tell the 12,760 householders in Bonner who are currently renting that the rental affordability scheme has been scrapped? Do I tell all those young people out there who are desperately trying to save for their first home that the first home saver scheme has been scrapped because the member for Wentworth would rather give Rolls Royce drivers a cheaper deal? Do I tell the parents of the 7,698 secondary school students in Bonner that they cannot get their education tax rebate?

The opposition care more about the plight of luxury car owners than they do about the vast number of Australians who have been unfairly slugged with a Medicare surcharge levy for the last 10 years. Apparently, it is okay for someone on $50,000 a year, which is less than the average income, to face a choice between paying more tax or paying private health insurance but it is not okay for someone who can afford a Maserati to pay a little more. Just where do they stand?

We all understand that in opposition you have the luxury of saying what you think is popular without really being held to account. But this opposition have taken that to an absolute extreme. They have wrecked a well-balanced budget that has a healthy surplus that will buffer us against the economic challenges ahead. And they have done it by taking a short-term impractical approach to petrol pricing and by protecting Ferrari-driving millionaires. One might almost call it ruling-class welfare. I know that there is a lot of vote buying going on in the Liberal Party but it is unfair that it is at the expense of those hardworking people out there who are not only trying to make ends meet, educate the next generation and care for their elderly relatives but also going to work every day to provide the goods and services that we need to function as a community. The people of Bonner will see this as an indictment of the opposition. They are reckless spenders without due regard for the hardworking Australians who provide the taxes that they want to so recklessly throw away on their pet issues without caring for the future and without caring about the impact on the economy. (Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Ageing and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to give the member for Bonner some advice. If she would like to explain to her constituents where the largesse is coming from that is flowing the way of her electorate, she might look to regional Australia. There has been over a billion dollars gutted out of there by this government in the scandalous budget that they have just brought down. Tonight, I rise to speak about the actions in this House earlier today over the introduction of the luxury car tax. Perhaps I was a bit naive, but I thought that the whole point of having a parliament was so that bills like the one on the luxury car tax could be fairly debated before being voted on. I would like to place on record my disappointment over the way that the current government rushed this bill through the House. There was not much opportunity to consider the bill and there was no warning, until the last minute, that it would be voted on. Many coalition MPs, including me, were not able to speak on it. The Australian parliament is supposed to be a place of fairness and openness. All members of this House should be given the time to study legislation before being asked to debate it. More importantly, every MP should have the right to speak on behalf of his or her constituents. I was elected to represent the people of the Parkes electorate and I should be able to do that.

I am appalled that I was not given the opportunity to speak on the issue despite the fact that the implementation of this legislation will have a huge effect on my constituents. As far as I am concerned, the antics today are an infringement on the democratic rights of the people of my electorate. Had I been given the chance to speak I would have told the parliament that, for many people in areas such as my electorate, owning a four-wheel drive is not a luxury but rather a necessity. Many of my constituents need to have a four-wheel drive in order to get to work or to get their kids to school. There are many roads that are impassable during wet weather, and if residents living on these roads do not have an adequate vehicle then they are left stranded when it rains. I would have also mentioned that four-wheel drives are necessary in my electorate because many of the roads have a lot of animal activity at night, and in most cases large four-wheel drives with a bullbar can mean the difference between staying on the road and having an accident. In addition to this, this tax will affect many car dealerships in my electorate who rely heavily on the four-wheel-drive market to sustain their businesses.

I was not given the opportunity to raise these and many others issues during the debate. This bill was rushed through this House and democracy was overlooked in the process. I would also like to use this opportunity tonight to comment on the amendment raised by the member for New England. This amendment, raised in relation to the luxury car tax bill was, I believe, lacking in detail. The member suggested an exception to the tax for ‘a four-wheel drive vehicle that is registered in a rural area’. While the member may have good intentions in raising the amendment, I do not think that the amendment was specific enough and it may well have led to some city people finding loopholes in the legislation. After all, what would stop someone who lives primarily in a city residence from finding a way to register their vehicle in a rural area to avoid the tax? How do you define a rural area? And what about families who may not live in a rural area but have to purchase a larger vehicle such as a Tarago to accommodate a child with a disability? Under this amendment, they get overlooked.

There were too many variables in this amendment and not enough clarity. In addition, I was not given enough time to properly consider what I was voting for, which is why I chose to abstain from voting. Every single vote we cast in this place has an effect on the laws of this country, and I was not willing to make a split-second decision on something that has such large implications in my electorate. I resolutely believe that people living in rural areas, such as those in my electorate, should be exempt from this tax. Any amendments to this legislation must specify geographic locations, and be absolutely watertight so that the four-wheel-drive owner in Toorak or Vaucluse cannot find a way to make themselves exempt. I also believe that families who must accommodate the transport needs of a disabled child should be exempt. I support the call by the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Wide Bay, for this measure to be dealt with in some detail by a Senate committee. A committee is the appropriate platform for this legislation to be considered in detail. I will be making a submission to this Senate committee so that the voices of the people in my electorate will be heard in relation to this issue.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with some interest that I start my contribution to this debate tonight. I have been listening to the opposition talking about luxury car tax and I really do find it sticks in the craw a little bit when you think that there are people prepared to spend more on a car than many people can afford to spend on a house. Then they talk to their representatives in this place and say, ‘That is outrageous. We shouldn’t have to pay that tax because people who earn less should be supporting us.’ And this seems to come across time and time again from the opposition—that those who do not have much are actually there as a resource for those that have plenty. Why should working families and working people pay welfare to millionaires? Why does a millionaire need a baby bonus to help with the cost of raising a child? And why does a millionaire family need family tax benefit to help them with their day-to-day living expenses? It is just not right.

This is a complete reversal—a perverse reversal—of what welfare should be. Welfare should be for those who need it. It should not be for those who just want it in order to get a bit extra. Welfare is to help people out so that no-one actually ends up on the bones of their backsides on the street. Welfare is something we take for granted in Australia, and many people have to rely on it because of their circumstances. But those people not in straitened circumstances—who can look after themselves very nicely; who may own several properties; who may go out and buy a Porsche, a Rolls-Royce, a Lotus or any other nice expensive car—are not the sorts of people who need welfare. Those on the other side are quite happy to stick up for that system. But I do not find it very attractive at all. I think welfare should go to those who do not have a choice. They need help from the rest of the people in Australia. That is why we have a government and that is why there is a redistribution of income: so that those at the bottom do have a chance and do have a choice to lift themselves up from where they are—or at least to survive on the level that they are at—rather than in an American type system where they end up with nothing and where there is an incarceration rate of nearly two per cent of the adult population. And why do they have that there? Because their welfare system has huge holes in it. Over there, after a few months on welfare, unemployment benefits cease. That is not something that happens in Australia. We look after people in this country and I think that is a very good thing. But there should be limits on who is looked after and when those types of benefits are delivered.

Money that is taken from taxes such as the luxury car tax or other high-end taxes—even those like the progression of income tax scales—is rightly put to social uses. It is rightly put into the Australian economy to build infrastructure and to build our skills base. These sorts of things did not happen during the Howard government. It strikes me that the opposition were not only the party of Work Choices and the party that took away workers’ rights and conditions. At the same time they were taking away more in another form—that is, tax cuts would go to the wealthy, who would get a huge advantage at budget time, whilst those on lower incomes would get a small advantage. So in each Howard budget, if your income had been high before, it was certainly a whole lot higher afterwards in percentage terms than for those at the bottom of the income scale.

Finally the cycle is over. Those at the top can survive quite well. Working families who are struggling to make ends meet week by week on wages that are under pressure from cost of living—and that comes from all angles whether it be rent or mortgage stress, petrol prices, or the cost of groceries or bringing up children—do need support. But, again, it comes back to what your income and circumstances are. To see that this budget has actually brought some of that back down to earth is a wonderful thing. As a Labor member, I am proud to be able to stand here and say that. It is not something I thought I would see for many years before I came to this place, because at one time I thought that maybe we were going to be stuck with a Howard Liberal government for a long, long time. And we were. But that is now over and I am happy to see that fairness has started to return to this House. (Time expired)