Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, moderate. It is a word that does not pass my lips very often, Senator Payne. I stand here—and I need to get this on the record—as no fan of smoking. I do not endorse smoking. I am someone who struggled very much and with great difficulty to kick the habit. It took me getting seriously ill before I could actually stop smoking. It is something I do not want my children to do. I think it is probably the single dumbest thing anyone can pick up. It does not taste good, to start with, and you have to spend a lot of money to do it. But, nonetheless, people do have the right to consume a legal product in this country in a legal manner.

Where those products are put forward, I do think it is important for governments to stop treating individuals as simply economic units—if I can characterise it like that—and they should not just be seen as cash cows for spendthrift governments to pursue policies that rarely pass the common-sense test. I make the point that successive governments in this country have always looked towards smokers and drinkers as one of those economic units. When I was a younger man, the headlines used to be: 'Budget—cigs up and beer up'. That was just accepted as part of government revenue raising. I think we have to start to reconsider how governments are raising revenue and what the government is actually spending the money on and think about whether there might be a better way.

For those who were characterised as the puritans or the nanny state brigade—and I hope I am accurately reflecting what you said, Senator Leyonhjelm—who simply say that people are consuming a product that is causing them harm and therefore we should dissuade them from doing something, I ask: where is that going to end? We already have advocates in this place and out there in the public sphere who say that we should be levying a tax on products with sugar in them, that we should be having fast food taxes and that we should be banning all sorts of advertising. The same rhetoric, the same sort of terminology and the same emotive arguments are being put forward with regard to a whole range of new issues that first began with tobacco.

We know tobacco is bad for us. We know that if we can discourage people from smoking, through education and making wise choices, it is a positive. But simply entreating those who are addicted to nicotine, which is a serious addiction, by putting the price up when, as Senator Leyonhjelm, points out, many of these people are already being funded by, to a large extent, government welfare initiatives, we are right to ask ourselves: 'What's the point?' It would mean the cost of living would rise and we would need to endorse increases in welfare—and, in some instances, indulgences—rather than holding people responsible for themselves.

This is a tough debate and it is a tough argument to win. It is very easy to push the emotive button and say: 'Smoking is bad for you. By making it more expensive, we're going to discourage people from smoking.' There may be some research that supports that, but I am always sceptical of advocacy research. On plain packaging for tobacco products, we have been told that a whole bunch of research attached to that has reduced the rate of smoking. But the evidence, I think, is somewhat to the contrary. In fact, the review of the policy—we have investigated this at Senate estimates—came after the policy had actually been implemented; they were asked to comment on the 'proposed' policy after it had already been in permit. So they have got the cart around the wrong way; that is how I would characterise it. They are not really interested in the social outcomes; in my mind, they are more interested in getting the revenue. We should come back to the principle that governments have enough money already, if they stick to their knitting. For those on the other side who say I am like a broken record on this, it is true, I am—because there is plenty of money if we stop wasting it, if we stop the money-go-round and the churn, if you will.

Senator Leyonhjelm made a point about subsidising child care—and that is why we need the government to justify taking revenue from another part of society. I have a view that, if we took less from people in the first place, they would then be able to make choices—whether it be in regard to child care, housing, health care or anything else—without needing subsidies from government. And that would free government up to look after those who are truly in need—those who need guidance and assistance in leading an appropriate lifestyle in this country free of poverty—and to make sure children can be educated no matter the parents' circumstances.

But we have got to address the elephant in the room, and that is that there is an increasing number of people out there who are demanding that government do things that are really the responsibility of individuals themselves. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think there was a report last week that basically said that the half of the population who are paying tax are subsidising the other half who are not. Basically, one-third of people are responsible for paying taxes in this country because something like 50 per cent of taxpayers get more in benefits or accommodation from government than they actually paying tax. This is insane, it is ridiculous, it is completely unsustainable. If you need any more evidence that it is unsustainable, simply look at the demography—which the Prime Minister referred to in his first speech to the parliament. Demographics determine the future fate of a nation as much as anything else. The number of welfare dependent people we have in Australia—people who are not paying their fair share or however you want to characterise it—is growing so much that we are in an unsustainable circumstance. The children in this country—and there fewer of them coming into the world—are going to be the ones responsible for propping up a system that seemingly no-one is prepared to say we have to change. It means a smaller number of people are going to be supporting the demands of a greater number of people.

We in this place today have a responsibility to say: 'Enough is enough. It's not for our children, in the next 20 years, to subsidise the indulgences of today; it's not for their children to subsidise our lack of wherewithal and say, "We've got to change the system."' There is a better way. We cannot continue to have government growing to be the major share of our economy; we cannot have it so that 50 per cent of the people are paying and subsidising the remaining 50 per cent of the people. So governments need to get themselves off the drip of saying: 'That person is using; let's continue to ramp up the taxes.'

Coming back to tobacco tax, a 12.5 per cent excise increase is scheduled for 1 September—and that is the fourth 12.5 per cent increase. When are we going to say enough is enough? When are we going to see the arguments about sugar taxes, fast food taxes, extra grog taxes and all of these things, which I do not think are legitimate, being extended into a whole range of other areas because some nanny-statist comes out and says those things are pretty bad for us? There are lots of things I do that are pretty bad for me. Playing football on the weekend was really bad for my physical health. But I am not asking anyone to subsidise that—except for my chiropractor, who I think is going to buy a new car as a result of the injuries I have sustained! But that is not the point. The point is that I am taking responsibility for that. If I choose to smoke, as inane and silly as I find that, then let me accept that responsibility. If the government does not like it, let it ban smoking. It will not—because it knows that that is an impingement on freedom and it is wrong to impinge that freedom through the taxation system.