Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I know you will agree with this important motion. As someone who represents his electorate as best he can in this House, you will note the government's appalling conduct with respect to the promised tax summit. This motion highlights the fact that this is an ever-disappearing promise of the government's, like so many of their promises in other policy areas. The motion notes the delay in the tax summit from June until October; it notes, as well, that Labor has major tax proposals in the form of the mining tax and the carbon tax—massive proposals that will damage the Australian economy. Of course prior to this summit they have ploughed on with them. Finally, the motion also seeks that the House decide not to impose legislation on these two matters until after the summit, which the government has said is all-important, at least considers those two measures which we consider to be damaging to the economy.

The tax summit was promised by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. It was not promised out of some deep principle; it was promised under sufferance. It was promised during the negotiations with the Independents and with the Independent member for Lyne in particular. It was conceived in desperation. What we have seen since the day the government succumbed to that pressure is a watering down of the summit. It is a summit which has become a forum, and it is a forum which is on its way to becoming a seminar by the time it finally takes place in October, now, not in June—not next month, which was originally pledged. The reason for this delay is that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister did not want to agree to hold a taxation summit. This is something they wish would go away. This is like a promised visit to a difficult relative. It was agreed under sufferance. It has been delayed in time and the visit has been reduced in duration. But, because it cannot be completely avoided, the visit will take place. But nothing will be achieved by it. The great aim now of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister is simply to get through this summit, which has become a forum and which is becoming a 48-hour seminar—and that is before the member for Lyne gives his introduction—and not to get anything from it.

Allocating 48 hours in October says so much about this government. They were prepared to agree to a summit, which has become a forum and is becoming a seminar, because they were prepared to agree to the wishes of the Independents. The truth is, this government has not been interested in tax reform; it has been interested in tax increases. We had the Henry review. This was a window into so much about this government's conduct. The government, then in opposition, ran to the 2007 election without a tax plan. We all remember this side of the House releasing a tax plan in the election campaign. It was met with a full week's silence before it was agreed to almost in totality, with just a difference in the top rate. Then those income tax cuts were legislated by this government, which of course now claims them as its own. But there was no great desire for tax reform until we had another summit, the very first summit here in this House, where acres of butchers paper were scrawled upon. The idea of another tax review was thrown up and the government embraced this. My friend the member for Dunkley will remember—it was only a few short years ago but in fiscal years it is an eternity ago—that this was when the government was looking at surpluses of $20 billion plus coming down the line.

So they embarked on the Henry review, a 19-month process. I think it cost $10 million and they got 1,500 submissions. The Treasurer received the report and then he sat on it for about five months. When he released it, he cherry-picked one or two recommendations and distorted them. What we have had from this government is the announcement of a mining tax that will do huge damage to the mining sector and the Australian economy. The figures for that are included in the budget. We have had the announcement of a carbon tax which the Prime Minister, six days before the election and one day before the election, said would never be implemented under a government she led. The Treasurer said it was hysterical for anyone to say that the government would introduce a carbon tax. Both of these taxes have been announced and the government is proceeding with them in the budget, ahead of the so-called tax summit, which has become a forum and is becoming a seminar in October. This highlights the hypocrisy of those opposite.

Many years ago there was a tax summit. The Hawke and Keating government had a tax summit in 1985. It went for a whole week. Whether you liked the Hawke government or the Keating government—and I am the first to admit that some of the things that came out of that tax summit were very positive—they outlined principles for tax reform well in advance. They did not say: 'Let's have a review of the tax system. We don't have any idea what it should do. Ken Henry, please do it and come back with the report.' They had principles for tax reform and they conducted a real tax summit for an entire week. This is going to be 48 hours where the government will just seek to get through every excruciating minute. For Wayne Swan, this will be the equivalent of sitting through a sibling's speech night. For every excruciating minute he will sit there through the tax summit, looking at the clocks in Parliament House, counting down those 48 hours just like at NASA they count down the hours and the minutes before the take-off of a space shuttle. As soon as it starts, he will be counting down every single minute—48 hours in October without any discussion of the carbon tax or the mining tax.

This motion notes the government's hypocrisy and delay and it says that, should they want to push ahead with their carbon tax and their mining tax, as they do, the House should not consider legislation, if the tax summit is so important. But of course we know their summit, forum, seminar or meeting is not important. As soon as it begins, the Treasurer will be counting down the minutes. When it comes to tax reform, the government likes to talk the talk, but when they had the Henry review with its 1,500 submissions and 19 months what did they do with it? They hid the report for five months before dropping it out a few days before the budget and picking up and distorting just a couple of those recommendations.

The Australian public is waking up to this government. It is not interested in tax reform; it is interested in tax increases. It is interested in a carbon tax it promised it would never deliver, a carbon tax that the Prime Minister said six days before the election and one day before the election would not be introduced under the government she led. The public is seeing exactly what this government is about on tax reform. It is like any other promise—it is extinguishable. This promise has been diluted; it is disappearing before our eyes. By the time we get to October, there will be lots of talk but no action from this government. Whenever it is given the chance, it promises one thing and delivers another.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor are the chief architects of economic reform and growth in Australia. It was a Labor government which shaped the modern Australian economy, when Prime Minister Curtin took control of Australia's monetary and fiscal policy. As John Edwards explains in his terrific biography, Curtin's Gift, Curtin was not only the man who saved Australia in World War II; he was also one of Australia's great economic reformers. John Curtin regulated private banks, imposed uniform income taxation and transformed the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and states, expanding Commonwealth activity for the benefit of all Australians. The Curtin Labor government oversaw the beginnings of our mass immigration program, supported university education and made substantial social security changes, putting in place the economic bedrock that would then form the basis of a prosperous postwar state. These reforms form part of the pillars of the modern Australian economy. Curtin's greatest achievement, John Edwards argues, was not saving us in World War II but setting us up for economic prosperity today.

Curtin's economic traditions have been continued by modern Labor governments. It was the Whitlam government that cut tariffs in 1973 and the Hawke and Keating governments that put in place economic reform and a productivity agenda that underpinned the economic growth Australia enjoyed in the 1990s. The current Labor government put in place reforms that navigated us through the global financial downturn. While those opposite would have been happy to see 200,000 Australian workers lose their jobs and thousands of businesses go to the wall, it was a Labor government that said no, Keynesian economics works at a time like this—we put in place a quick, timely, targeted temporary fiscal stimulus that ensured that Australia did not experience the economic downturn that much of the rest of the world experienced.

The Gillard government is now delivering much-needed economic reform. We are putting in place reforms to price carbon so that we can tackle dangerous climate change, recognising that the earlier we act on pricing carbon, the lower the cost will be to the Australian economy. Like most things, leaving it too late raises the cost—and that is what those opposite would have us do. We are putting in place reforms through carbon pricing that are mainstream economics. In fact, I often challenge those opposite to name one or two economists who back their proposals. I am yet to find a member of the opposition who is able to name a couple of economists who back direct action on carbon pricing. I am happy to put that challenge to the member for Higgins today. If the member for Higgins would like to name a couple of economists who back the opposition's plan, that would be delightful. But, as with climate change science, in which we see the vast bulk of scientific opinion strongly backing the notion that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it, those recalcitrants in the coalition party room are willing to stand up against science, and again they will stand up against economics when it comes to getting the policy right.

Meanwhile, we in the Labor Party are helping Australians get a fair return on their mineral resources while investing in our community. We are putting out detailed plans for minerals resource rent taxation which recognise that the minerals in the ground are the birthright of all Australians, which recognise that fair minerals taxation is appropriate and is sensible reform to put in place at this time in the economic cycle.

We are here today in a curious position. We are debating a private member's motion by an absent private member. The member for North Sydney is happy to move things, happy to foreshadow them in speeches and put them on the Notice Paper, but he appears to have gone AWOL today. The member for Casey is generously standing in as the shadow Treasurer today. I guess that is because the shadow Treasurer himself has great aspirations to take on the leadership baton. He is too busy trying to get the numbers to knock off the Leader of the Opposition to actually appear here in the chamber and talk about ideas. When we debated the amendments to the executive remuneration exactly the same thing happened. The shadow Treasurer had foreshadowed that these amendments were very important to him. He was very happy to talk about such things on the ABC program Q&A but, when it actually came to going into the chamber and doing the hard work of advocating for reform, he left it to the member for Casey.

That is indicative of much of what is currently going on with economic policymaking in the opposition. When the shadow Treasurer was presenting to the National Press Club, he was forced to put out three steps but with no detail whatsoever. He leaves the accounting to the member for Goldstein, who has presided over the $11 billion black hole in the coalition's budget costing. The coalition are still unwilling to face up to the fact that they have been unable to make the books balance, that they are unable to say which spending measures they would oppose in order to make the books balance. The Leader of the Opposition showed this very clearly when he had the opportunity to deliver a budget reply and instead delivered a speech that better suited a shock jock audience than a mature debating chamber.

Meanwhile the government will get us back into the black by 2012-13. Having seen Australia through one of the greatest economic downturns in world economic history, the government is now presiding over the fastest fiscal consolidation in 40 years. Contrary to the spin by those opposite, Labor treasurers have consistently been more frugal than their Liberal counterparts. George Megalogenis pointed out in a recent opinion piece:

If Labor were spending at the same rate as the Coalition was then—

by which he means at the end of the coalition's term of government in 2007—

the budget would be heading for a deficit of more than $20 billion in 2012-13, rather than for a surplus of $3.5bn.

Despite bellowing about high-taxing and high-spending governments, the opposition knows that the Howard government were bigger spenders of taxpayers' money and that the Gillard government is the more responsible and prudent economic manager.

That is as true for economic management as it is for climate change. The Labor Party in government listened to the advice of expert economists. We put in place climate change plans that represent the consensus views of the world's best economists and are not dissimilar from those that the UK Conservative Party backs through their emissions trading scheme. The UK Conservative Party, the political heirs of Margaret Thatcher, are supporting market based mechanisms, recognising that they are the most cost-effective way of tackling dangerous climate change. Meanwhile, the Gillard government is reinvesting in regions through a $6 billion regional investment fund, boosting superannuation for eight million Australians and simplifying personal tax for six million Australians.

Those opposite might as well be part of a drama penned by Cecily von Ziegesar. The member for North Sydney currently presides over the metro steps, but will a bold move last week by the member for Wentworth steal the keys to the shadow treasury locker? Or is the member for Wentworth manoeuvring to preside over the class again? Perhaps the member for North Sydney will side with the member for Wentworth on this occasion because he feels the current ringleader hung him out to dry. Are we going to see shouting matches with blackberries at 10 paces? Are we going to work out which entourage the members of the opposition party room will follow when they go to the midwinter ball? Who needs policy when you have gossip and intrigue? Of course, if it goes wrong, you can always call in the parents, which are of course John Howard and probably the member for Mackellar. Aren't all problems ultimately solved by pulling the warring parties in for a quiet chat with the headmistress?

Some of us live across the bridge—in the world of hard work and real policies, not constant negativity and three-word slogans. That is the currency by which we aim to make the country even better.

So as those opposite go back to deciding who the current queen of the metro steps is, Labor continues to drive economic growth, to grow jobs, to cut taxes, to get a fairer return on our mineral wealth and to tackle the biggest policy challenge—dangerous climate change.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an amazing contribution that was just made by the member for Fraser. It did not seem to focus too much on the actual motion. I think in fact it could be retitled 'In defence of economists'. We know he feels very strongly about that. In his little history lesson there I note that he did not talk about Chifley and the banks. He was keen to steer away from talking about Labor and its record but rather was focused on the Liberal Party. But I am here to talk about the motion before this parliament. In his first budget speech four years ago, Wayne Swan warned of the dangers of inflation. He said Labor was committed to improving—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you please use the proper term.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer warned of the dangers of inflation. He said Labor was committed to improving productivity and reforming the taxation system. In May 2008 the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and said:

Tonight I confirm the most comprehensive review of Australia's tax system since World War 2.

But the 2008 budget did not deliver this promised tax reform. Nor did the 2009 budget, nor did the 2010 budget and nor has this budget. Incidentally, this last budget was the first budget for eight years that has not provided tax cuts for everyday Australians. It is not an accident that this is also the first budget where they have not been able to simply adopt, even only in part, the tax reform schedule put in place by the former Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello AC.

Treasurer Swan announced the Henry tax review—another big first, according to the Treasurer, another historic review. Much was made of the fact that it would deliver significant reforms, making tax fairer and simpler. On 23 December 2009 the Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, delivered the results of the Henry tax review. Some 1,500 submissions had been made, 30 speeches were delivered proclaiming just how big this tax review was and forums were held in every capital city across the country. While Wayne Swan kept the Henry tax review secret for over five months, he said that once it was announced he would act. But 17 months and three new taxes later, we are still waiting for the government to act. We are told it is going to be another five months until we see the tax summit. What the government has done so far in this short period, though, is to cherry-pick a few of the recommendations—that is, new taxes—and leave aside the actual reform. It is always easier to be a taxing government than a reforming one. It is here that we see the consistency of the Labor Party. They are consistent on this. They will always take the easy option. They will always tax more but always leave the hard stuff for someone else to do. They leave reform for a coalition government to do. So it is good to see that they are true to form, which brings me to the tax summit.

Before and after the election, the Prime Minister made a lot of promises to the Australian people and to the Independents. She said that there would be no carbon tax, but there was also another promise she made—a commitment to have a full and frank exchange on tax reform. In her letter of 7 September 2010 to the member for Lyne, the Prime Minister promised that a tax summit would be held by June 2011. Specifically, she committed to 'convene a public forum of experts on taxation and its economic and social effects to discuss the Henry review, with that meeting to be held before 30 June 2011' and to 'facilitate a debate on tax reform in the Australian parliament following the forum'. This is what the Australian people expected would happen and it is certainly what the Independent members of parliament expected to happen when they signed up to this current government. The member for Lyne said in a speech on 7 September 2010:

By June 2011, we've got a commitment to have the Henry Tax review thrown into the public domain with full recommendations from government and a fair-dinkum open debate—

about tax—

in this country. That is a good and big outcome from this process …

The Prime Minister and also the Treasurer come to the table with their credibility in tatters. While Australia may have hoped for a fair dinkum and open debate about tax, it has been very difficult for the Prime Minister to appear fair dinkum while demoting this summit to a forum, then to a seminar and then finally to what no doubt will be a meeting when it at last occurs in October this year. There has been a very deliberate delay: the summit was originally to take place in June and July, but the date has, as I said, slipped to October. The Treasurer said he was going to provide some details as to who will be invited to this forum in the coming months, and he said that he would release a discussion paper in the middle of the year to help foster debate, but we are still waiting to find out who is going to be invited to come along.

What can we expect from the summit when it does finally happen? Since 2007, Wayne Swan has announced 13 new taxes, and before the government released the Henry tax review there were 125 taxes. Since the government's response to the Henry tax review, we have seen a mining tax, a carbon tax and a flood tax which together have put the number of taxes up to 128. Is this how the government reviews tax reform? If it is, then—goodness gracious!—what can we expect from this tax summit? Will it give small business the opportunity to make genuine contributions to the reform of our taxation system or will small business be told about further new taxes?

Just as we heard no mention of the carbon tax in the Treasurer's budget speech, the tax summit—despite the government's claim that it will be a comprehensive review—will not even cover the carbon and mining taxes. It is understandable that Labor would like to pretend that the carbon tax does not exist—the government set a goal to collect no more than 23.5 per cent of GDP in tax revenue—but if a carbon tax of $26 per tonne were included in the current budget, and we know that the Greens would like the tax to be upwards of $100 a tonne, the government's target would, of course, be exceeded. Instead it was completely ignored.

In the budget we know that the figure for revenue and spending from the carbon tax is at least $11.5 billion per year, yet this has also been completely ignored. So not only does Labor refuse to countenance the effects of its carbon tax on families and businesses struggling already with the cost-of-living pressures that they have to live with day to day; it refuses to accept that the carbon tax is a violation of its very own measure of fiscal discipline. The Treasurer cannot have it both ways; he cannot claim that there is a lack of revenue when over the next two years the government is set to receive a record-breaking $75 billion in extra revenue. The Treasurer cannot claim that the carbon tax is an important economic reform and at the same time ignore it completely in the budget because it makes the government look bad.

There are only a couple of real reformers here. It is the coalition that are the real reformers on tax. That is why we went through the pain of introducing a GST—a reform that the Labor opposition opposed tooth and nail. We ended up replacing the wholesale sales tax and nine different state taxes, and we did it over time after we had explained to the Australian people why it was necessary to take these actions. Not only that; we were prepared to get a mandate for it. We took our reforms to an election. We made sure that the Australian people understood the need for a GST and the impact it would have on their lives day to day before we brought it in. Not so this arrogant Labor government.

Already, as I have said before, the Australian people are suffering cost-of-living pressures. Since 2007, energy costs have risen by upwards of 51 per cent, education costs have risen by upwards of 24 per cent and there have been seven interest rate rises in a row. This is having a huge impact on Australian families. When you add in the carbon tax and the RBA's forecast further interest-rate rises, life will be made increasingly difficult for Australians who are working, paying their mortgage and trying to raise a family. Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you please use titles. I expect that of you.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not really want a tax debate; they do not really want to justify themselves to the Australian people. We are not going to see a full and frank, root and branch review of the tax system over the next couple of months. We are certainly not going to see that at the forum—or meeting or whatever it is finally going to be called—in October this year. What we will see is spin; we will see a fig leaf to cover the fact that this government is going to increase the taxes of the Australian people. There is really only one way to have a real forum on tax reform and that is to have an election, to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want new taxes, as this government has promised it will deliver. I think the answer is: they do not.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow a contribution made by the spiritual daughter of the former Treasurer. Part of the difficulty the member for Higgins had in referring to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer by their titles was that her contribution today on the motion of the member for North Sydney on a tax forum was remarkably similar to an article recently written by the former Treasurer. In fact, we could have saved time and not had the member for Higgins make this contribution; rather, she could have just referred us to the article because, clearly, that is where her inspiration has come from to the extent that they had very similar—almost word for word—opening paragraphs.

It is interesting that she harks back to the so-called golden days of the former Treasurer. One has to look at the former Treasurer's record on taxation, because that is what we are talking about here—taxation. We had the highest-taxing government under the former Treasurer not one year, not two years, not three years but four years in a row. Four times, they were the highest-taxing government in Australia's history. The current member for Higgins was the adviser to the Treasurer, so she does know about big-taxing issues. She is an expert on big-taxing governments because that is what she did in her former life. It is little wonder that she comes here today saying 'This is what we should be doing.' She has a history of being a big-taxing person, just like the former government was a big-taxing government, the biggest-taxing government we have seen in Australia's history four times in a row.

For the member for Higgins to come along here today and parrot the words of her spiritual leader denies the facts and the record of what actually occurred. She even talked about interest rates, which are over two per cent lower than when we came to government. So the criticism of us on interest rates does not stack up to reality. Yes, rising interest rates do hurt families. Families knew that more than ever under the former government when they saw 10 interest rate increases in a row.

This government has dealt with fiscal policy in a way which is consistent with monetary policy. We are tightening both fiscal and monetary constraints as Australia comes out of the global financial crisis and moves forward to the mining boom mark 2. It is very important that we do this and it is very important that we are consistent on this.

It is hardly surprising that the member for Higgins shows no concern about the global financial crisis. There was no reference to it whatsoever in her speech and no reference to savings measures that could have been made, because when the former Treasurer was in government we had a willy-nilly blowing of the mining boom mark 1. They spent whatever they could, wherever they could, as long as they spent the money and blew the money.

The former Treasurer, the former member for Higgins, said that he dreaded going to the former Prime Minister with options as to what to do and what to spend because the former Prime Minister would say, 'We'll do all of it!' They showed absolutely no restraint when they were in government, and the way in which they funded spending was to tax the Australian taxpayer. They increased taxes. They made sure their government was the highest-taxing government in the history of this country four years in a row. So it is of little surprise that the member for Higgins comes here with that in her backpack as the way she would deal with these issues. A tax forum is a serious issue and it is one that this government is taking seriously. With the crossbenchers, we have agreed to a forum on 4 and 5 October. It is no secret that this summit is going to be very important. It is going to look at issues of personal tax, transfer payments, business tax, state tax, environmental and social tax, and tax system governance. One thing is for sure: we are going to turn up and be there. We are going to make sure we take it seriously, unlike those on the other side who put up motions in this place and then simply do not turn up and cannot be bothered to make a contribution. It is a disgrace. It is holding this place in contempt that someone could move a motion on tax, say it is an important issue and it is a shame that we have moved it back three months and yet does not even turn up to talk to their motion.

That is how seriously the member for North Sydney takes this issue of tax reform. He is only out for a cheap quick headline. He has no basis for looking at the solid record that this government has in tax reform. He has no interest in looking at tax reform at all. What appears to be his concern at the moment is his personal relationship with the Leader of the Opposition. We understand from the weekend papers that it is at such a shaky stage at this time that he thinks he has been hung out to dry. It is little wonder he will not come here. He is worried about being hung out to dry if he actually says anything on tax. He has been classically caught. He has put up a motion saying, 'We need to look at tax; it is a really important issue,' but then he is a little scared if he has to come and actually speak on the issue because of what his leader might say. Is he going to hang him out to dry on this one again? He cannot actually propose anything. It is a bit like his position on the Henry review—deafening silence. Do they support the Henry review?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the answer we get from the opposition—silence, dead air. They do not know what they want to do in terms of tax reform at all. They are an absolute shambles on their economic position. There is this internal debate that is going on as to whether they should actually have a policy on any issue or whether they should continue with the current strategy of trying to duck and hide and not say anything about any particular issue. So it is little wonder that the member for North Sydney chose, in his usual courageous manner, not to turn up and contribute today. He probably can be excused, given the recent emails and phone calls that he has been getting from the Leader of the Opposition.

This government is prepared to commit to the tax forum to make sure that we do look at those issues. We are also making sure that the mining sector pays an appropriate amount of tax. This should not be delayed until a tax summit. This needs to be dealt with now. Australians right around the country understand there is a mining boom, but they want to make sure that they get their fair share of the economic prosperity that is flowing to a few. Part of the way in which we do this is by making sure that the mining tax is put into place as quickly as we can so that we can all share in its benefits.

You need only to look at an area like my own, the seat of Dobell on the Central Coast, where people are doing it tough. They have been doing it tough for a long time. We are right next to a mining area in the Hunter, yet my area does not receive the benefits that flow from the boom that is occurring there.

It is important that we do not delay. It is important that we put in place the mining tax. What we are getting from the member for North Sydney and the opposition is a delaying tactic. It is another plank in their continued attack on the government. Their attack is about saying: 'Let's do nothing; let's take a position where we say nothing. Let's try to stop anything positive that the government is trying to do to improve the lives of ordinary Australians'—ordinary Australians such as those who live in my electorate.

I do not have terribly much time left, but I do want to make some comment on the carbon tax, which really is an industry pollution reduction scheme. That is a better way perhaps of looking at it. I had the pleasure of having the Leader of the Opposition visit my electorate last week. I put an open invitation to him: 'You have come to an electorate that has been affected by climate change. Come with me to Norah Head and see the houses that are falling off the cliff, the beaches that are washing away and the houses losing their backyards at the north entrance and the flooding of the Tuggerah Lakes.' What did he do instead? He chose to do a stunt with Weet-bix. The big issue facing Australia is Weet-bix.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no carbon tax on Weet-Bix—there will be—

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly! Come on in. He was asked: what is the carbon tax impact on a Weet-Bix, and what is his answer? 'I don't know.' This is a stunt of a motion. It is one that should be rejected. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting this motion, I remind the House of the purpose of a tax summit: to answer questions and consider the impact of various taxation policies. This Labor-Green government's plan to introduce a carbon tax will deliver for Australia the biggest tax regime without a mandate that this country has ever seen. It goes against the Prime Minister's election commitment and the Treasurer's election commitment and the commitments of at least 144 of the 150 members of the House of Representatives. To have this tax summit after the introduction of legislation for the carbon tax or the mining tax or without them in the mix, is to make a mockery of the tax summit and to admit that both these taxes will not stand up to the scrutiny of a tax summit. Far too many questions remain unanswered for such monstrous taxes to be imposed on the people of Australia through further means of stealth and deception. Australian voters were not afforded the opportunity to ask questions before the last election as the Prime Minister's promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led took any debate off the table. Having the tax summit after these taxes are introduced or without them being considered is another means of taking the debate off the table and it is proof that when these taxes are scrutinised, we will not like what we see.

This Labor-Greens government is eager to label any scrutiny or discussion of carbon tax impacts as scaremongering. But in fact these discussions that we are having right now are at the conservative end of the scale and no-one fully understands the profound impact this tax will have on real people, real families and real communities. When we talk about 6½c a litre additional tax on fuel and $300 a year additional on electricity bills, we are talking about Treasury's own figures based on a carbon tax of $26 per tonne. If this is scaremongering, then what will Labor call it when the figures are adjusted for the minimum $40 a tonne that is being advocated by Senator Bob Brown? What will it be if the figures are adjusted to reflect the $100 a tonne figure put forward by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young? These are the people that this government is in alliance with. This Labor-Greens government does not want their carbon tax monstrosity reviewed by the people through a tax summit. They do not even want us to discuss the basic impact of the low end of the scale. They do not even want the public to mention it.

That is understandable, because the public hates it. The public knows that this carbon tax is a bad tax. They know that it will hurt industries. They know it will hurt business. They know that it will hurt families and they know that it will cost jobs. The majority of the general public out there, the real people, real families, real communities, know that this carbon tax will not do anything to clean up the environment, but they know that it will clean out their wallets. The people of my electorate in Dawson probably have the most to lose out of these taxes. The mining tax and the carbon tax appear to them to be a direct attack on their jobs and their cost of living. It is almost as if there is a visceral hatred of productive regions like those in the electorate of Dawson from the other side. As if the mining tax was not bad enough, independent economists now say that this carbon tax of $26 a tonne will mean that 16 coalmines will be closed with 23,000 mining jobs lost. How many of those will be jobs of miners in my electorate of Dawson?

We have heard that the government will have households compensated under this carbon tax, but I tell you what: you cannot compensate someone losing their job. In regional centres that are creating the wealth, like Central Queensland, the Mackay region and the Bowen Basin, the cost of living is already higher than for the rest of the country. The boom centres pay more in freight, they pay more in rent and they pay more in groceries, but not everyone is on better wages associated with the boom. Introducing a carbon tax will increase costs on every single thing we need. People on average incomes will not be compensated because they will be paying more—most likely a lot more. How much more will they pay? How will the carbon tax affect mining families? How will it affect non-mining families in mining towns? These are questions that we do not have answers for. The tax summit will supply some of those answers and get to the truth of the matter but, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, it seems they cannot handle the truth. But I have a message to the government from the people: we can handle the truth; we just cannot handle two great big taxes that will be no gain and all pain.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a terrifically breezy gig shadow Treasurer is these days. The shadow Treasurer, the man relied upon by the Leader of the Opposition for advice on fiscal policy to help shape an alternative view about the budget, was unable to deliver anything in relation to savings. The shadow Treasurer went to the National Press Club and was unable to identify any savings to put forward as an alternative to the government's budget. He is a person who floats policy and is then subsequently undermined by the Leader of the Opposition. From what we are given to understand, great division exists in relation to aspects of economic policy within the coalition. Finally, the shadow Treasurer puts forward a resolution and does not even have the decency to turn up to the chamber to speak on it. This constitutes what is entailed within the shadow Treasurer position in the coalition these days. Here we have being debated a motion put forward by the shadow Treasurer, who is not present, which simply amounts to another tactic designed to play politics and wreck important reforms instead of coming up with positive ideas. On this account at least the member for North Sydney is consistent.

The government have agreed with the crossbenchers to hold the tax forum on 4 and 5 October at Parliament House, covering a broad suite of topics including sessions to discuss personal tax, transfer payments, business tax, state taxes, environmental and social taxes, and tax system governance. We will also release a discussion paper in the middle of the year to help foster the debate. We have made it clear there are parts of the tax review we will not be implementing. For instance, we will not increase the GST. But we still expect and welcome a broad and constructive debate on future priorities and challenges. We have a big economic reform agenda, and we look forward to discussing those steps at the forum. It will not surprise anyone to see the coalition playing politics already instead of coming up with positive ideas of their own.

The government have already outlined a substantial agenda that will put a price on carbon for the big polluters to change their behaviour, instead of drawing billions of the government budget as in the direct action plan being advocated by the coalition. We will also reform business taxes, boost superannuation, invest in infrastructure and provide tax breaks for small business. The government have a timetable for these reforms which includes extensive consultation through business roundtables, expert panels and other meetings. The forum itself will lay out the steps we need to take over the next decade.

As this motion would suggest, the opposition have no interest in economic reform whatsoever. They ignored the tax review, the Garnaut review, the Treasury incoming government brief and their own Shergold report on carbon pricing. They ignored overwhelming advice that a carbon price is the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions, as reaffirmed recently by Professor Garnaut. They ignored the tax review advice that resource rent taxes are more efficient than royalties, that tax should be simplified for small businesses and individuals, and that superannuation should be boosted and made fairer.

We know that the opposition care just as little about the tax forum because, despite this motion, their position is already settled. They oppose better resource taxation, company tax cuts, small business tax breaks, new infrastructure funding, a boost to superannuation, fairer superannuation incentives, larger superannuation contribution caps, personal tax simplification and a tax discount on interest income.

The government on the other hand have a proud record of reform on tax, delivering $47 billion in tax cuts and, for a person on $50,000 in the Chifley electorate, we have cut their tax by $1,750 per year. The government have committed to keep tax as a share of GDP at or below the level we inherited, which was on average 23.5 per cent. This year we are at 21.8 per cent. Contrast that with the previous government, which was the highest taxing government of all time, peaking at 24.1 per cent of GDP—21.8 per cent today; 24.1 per cent under them.

When the government released the report of the tax review and announced a substantial package of tax reforms in May last year, we made it clear that these were our first steps in a long process. Since then, we have announced a further 12 measures that deliver on reform directions outlined and identified by the tax review, including removing unintended tax incentives for people who drive more than they need in order to obtain a larger tax concession; improving small-business tax rules by replacing the entrepreneurs tax offset with a small-business tax package; and improving certainty for investors by allowing infrastructure projects of national significance to carry forward losses with an uplift factor to maintain value. These measures build on the government's long-term plan to strengthen the economy and I welcome them. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate is expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.