Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The defenders of privilege over there are being true to form in their opposition to this increase in the luxury car tax. The Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008 was carried by this House and has been the subject of considerable debate in the Senate. Constructive suggestions have been put forward by the Greens, by Senator Xenophon, by Senator Fielding—by everyone except for the coalition, who have dealt themselves out of any constructive contribution to the federal budget. The coalition is determined to blow a $6.2 billion hole in the Rudd government’s budget. This comes at a time of considerable international financial uncertainty.

Under those circumstances, it is absolutely critical that the budget surplus be preserved intact—that the $22 billion which the Rudd government was able to achieve as a budget surplus be supported by both chambers. And it should be supported by both sides of the House. Those opposite suggest various spending measures from time to time, whether they be spending measures for individuals or spending measures for infrastructure. But the fact is that those opposite are determined to defend the people who drive Porsches and can afford to support this tax increase. Those opposite have chosen, by their actions, to exclude themselves from this debate. They have vacated the field when it comes to the debate about responsible economic management. I call upon them to have a close look at the report issued today by the International Monetary Fund. That report gives a great deal of support to the Rudd government’s budget surplus. It gives a great deal of support to the government’s budget strategy.

What those opposite seek to do, because they cannot accept the verdict of the Australian public on 24 November last year, is to deny the government its budget. On Sunday, on the Laurie Oakes program on Channel 9, the Leader of the Opposition was not quite sure whether $6 billion was a small amount or a large amount; he just knew that was the amount of the hole that he wanted to blast in the budget. It is quite extraordinary—and I say this as someone who is not close to the Australian Greens party, as those opposite would know—that the Australian Greens have been more economically responsible during this debate than the coalition, and that is where they are up to.

There are suggestions of opposition to the amendments that have been carried by the Senate. Those amendments have occurred of course because this is the second time that the Senate has considered this legislation. Had the coalition supported it in full, early on without the exemptions, that would be what we would be considering in the House right now—so their hypocrisy knows no bounds. (Extension of time granted) They have ensured that the minor parties have been in a position to negotiate changes to the government’s legislation. Of course governments like to have their legislation carried unamended—that is the basis on which they put bills up—but this government also recognises that there is a legitimate role for constructive discussion. Considering these amendments, we find we have legislation as amended by the Senate that we can certainly support because it is a part of the framework of the Australian government’s budget.

It is unfortunate that the opposition are not prepared to support the government’s $22 billion surplus—instead they want to make a smash-and-grab raid on the surplus—and that they are prepared to stand up for luxury car owners. That is essentially what their position before the House comes down to. They stand condemned for their position on this, just as they stand condemned for their position on the condensate measures and other measures that are before the Senate in terms of the government’s budget.

This government is determined to act responsibly. It is recognised by the business community and by economic commentators that the budget surplus is important. Today we have support for that from the IMF. This government will continue to act in an economically responsible way by supporting measures which, by having a substantial surplus in the short term, will serve to put downward pressure on interest rates and inflation and will provide for the medium-term and long-term objectives of support for our infrastructure.

Question put:

That the requested amendments be made.

See this speech in context