Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The reality is that approximately 105,000 cars are sold in Australia over the current $57,123 amount. Approximately 90 per cent of them are imported. The majority of money made on selling cars is for the most part in the price of the new car, but this includes the servicing of vehicles. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that increasing tax decreases purchasing power, which perhaps is what the Rudd government is looking for. If purchasing power is decreased, it follows by necessity that fewer cars are bought. If fewer cars are bought, fewer cars are serviced, fewer tyres are bought and fewer accessories for cars are bought, and this impacts on the workforce. If fewer cars are bought—less servicing, fewer accessories for cars, fewer tyres, less maintenance—it can only mean one thing: unemployment. It is well and truly reflected in the Treasury figures that 134,000 Australians will be unemployed because of this budget. This tax contributes, in part, to that number of 134,000 Australians. If you add in partners and a number of children, that makes almost half a million Australians. Working Australians—dare I use that much used term—will be turned into welfare Australians.

This will hurt dealers, salesmen, importers and servicing areas. It will hurt small business. The Gold Coast is a small-business capital of the nation. Many of those small businesses use a range of vehicles, including Taragos, which will now be taxed. Many constituents with disabled children or large families in the electorate of Fadden will now be disadvantaged because an extra tax has been placed on vehicles that they need to buy because they need the extra seat capacity, the extra room for accessories, the extra room to store equipment or the extra room simply to be able to make modifications to a vehicle in order to meet their needs. This is a slug on the very people that the government stood before—the Australian population—and said that it was there to protect and support. This is a fraud. This is a con. This is something that has been perpetrated on the Australian people. This is a tax which, in some part, is placed on people who can least afford it: the disadvantaged, those with a disability, who need modifications for vehicles. What do we say now to a family of three, four or five children, when one of the children has a disability and needs modifications made to a vehicle, in particular a large vehicle, to carry the whole family? Do we say, ‘I am sorry, you are going to have to pay an extra $3,000 or $4,000 for your vehicle because the government thought it would raise more money’? It did not want debate on the subject; it just pushed it through late at night for a second reading the next day and flagrantly demanded it be passed in the House that same day.

This whole budget reeks of the politics of envy. It reeks of trying to give what this government thinks is a kick in the guts to those who are apparently wealthy. But the question is: what is ‘wealthy’ to this government? FBT charges have gone up, so you can no longer provide meal vouchers and cards to your staff without paying FBT. Laptops can no longer be purchased for purposes other than work, so families will stop buying laptops FBT exempt for their children. Isn’t that a great advertisement for the education revolution?

Apparently, if you have a $57,000 car you are wealthy. Means testing for solar panels means that a household earning $100,000 is apparently wealthy. Apparently, the $100,000 Medicare levy threshold and the $110,000 childcare rebate threshold knock out the wealthy. The threshold of $150,000 for family tax benefit B and the baby bonus applies to the apparently wealthy, yet the upper tax bracket is $180,000. What is it, government? What is it that you class as the ‘wealthy’ number? Because it changes right across the bracket, from the top tax bracket of $180,000 to the solar panel rebate threshold of $100,000—and, of course, $50,000 is the cut-off for this new extra tax. What is the ‘wealthy’ number that you so vehemently want to punish? What is it about the politics of envy that leads this government to seek out those who, through incentives and hard work, have added to their earning capacity? What is it about these people that you want to punish?

What is it about small business that you want to punish? Companies in Fadden that use vehicles—and, get this, also produce solar panels, like Ecotech—are now being doubly hit. Their business is halving because this government has some problem with people working hard, using initiative, building on incentive and earning a reward from that. What is it? What do you not like about hardworking Australians who do well? What do you not like about small business in this country? Small business employs 50 per cent of Australians. What is it that you do not like about them? What is it that you do not like about the three Gold Coast seats of Fadden, Moncrieff and McPherson—the small-business capital of the nation? You want to punish that small-business capital with these ridiculous new charges, these ridiculous new taxes. Why is it that you spent 11 years in opposition and now have no legislative agenda and feel the need to rush something through? Because when you rush it through you are hiding something. What is that? What is it that is driving this government towards these ridiculous measures?

This bill must be referred to a Senate committee. It needs to be analysed. We cannot stand by in all good conscience and allow the government to railroad through new taxes. One minute they are telling the press, as per the front page of the Australian, that they will include this in the Henry review; the next minute they sneak it through and demand a debate in the morning. This cannot be allowed to occur. This must go to a Senate committee. This must be reviewed. And someone must stand up and fight for the people of Australia who will be disadvantaged by this. That is exactly what we on this side of the chamber will do.

See this speech in context