David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take advantage of this opportunity to speak against the matter that has been put before the House this afternoon.

The opposition, in their matter of public importance, have come forward asserting that the taxation policy of this government has in some way jeopardised the future living standards of Australians. I make the point that my colleague the Assistant Treasurer made a little earlier, and that is that one of the significant initiatives that we have undertaken in relation to taxation is the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax. We are working through the process of introducing that reform, and in doing so will undertake a taxation reform that will ensure the Australian people are able to secure a reasonable return upon the exploitation of our resources.

This was a tax that was recommended by the Henry review. The Henry review recommended that we should shift our taxation base away from more mobile factors of production and shift taxation to those areas that are more fixed. In that very way this government has brought forward a proposal that will not only introduce a minerals resource rent tax but cut corporate tax and company tax.

We find ourselves in the bizarre situation where the Liberal Party—supposedly the party of business—would like to parade themselves around as being supportive of business, and in particular, small business. But when it comes to company tax, we have a proposal to cut company tax and they want to stand in the way. They want to block a tax cut for companies. In doing so, they want us to do what they did in office, and that is to walk away from the great opportunity to tap into the mineral resources that are currently being exploited at a great rate of knots in this country as a result of the mining boom mark 2.

We are determined to take advantage of this opportunity; we will lock in those gains in the form of the minerals resource rent tax, and we will secure higher living standards for Australians through an investment in their long-term future through retirement savings.

In terms of the broader question of tax, I offer a few comments in relation to the overall tax burden across the economy. This government has made a commitment to retain taxation levels, or to ensure that taxation levels do not exceed, on average those levels that were in place when we came into office. To emphasise that point, the ratio of tax to GDP dropped from 23.5 per cent in 2007-08 to 20.3 per cent in 2009-10. So for all the discussion about taxation and the great burden of taxation that this government is supposedly imposing on people, the facts are facts, and those facts demonstrate that when it comes to the proportion of tax to the size of the economy we have lowered the burden of taxation in this country. Putting all of the rhetoric to one side, those are the facts.

I want to address the issue of the carbon price, because this is very much central to the discussion. When it comes to the carbon price, there will be many Australians all around this country who will be somewhat confused by the adversarial nature of the debate that we have been engaged in in this country. But to those Australians I say this: ask yourself a simple question. Do not be distracted by so many of the furphies that are brought forward by some of the extremes in this debate and, in fact, by some who understand the issues but seek to obfuscate and to confuse people. Ask yourself this question: do we believe as a nation that we will be able to continue to rely upon fossil fuels the way we do today into the future—10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 40 years into the future? Do you believe that we will be able to continue to rely on fossil fuels at the same rate that we currently do? Most Australians will conclude that the answer to that question is no, and if your conclusion is no then you are faced with a challenge, as this government is faced with a challenge. That is the challenge of how we best prepare for that future, a future where we as a nation will not be able to be as dependent upon fossil fuels as we have been in the past. There is much evidence, when it comes to preparing for that massive restructure that this economy will need to undertake, of the benefits of early action, regardless of international action. We support and encourage international action, but the benefits for the Australian economy will be there if we take early action.

There have been many parallels that have been made in relation to free trade. Sometimes when the economic reform train leaves the platform there are people left on the platform. We saw, when the Fraser Liberal government left office, that it had failed to confront some of the challenges in relation to free trade. We saw the Hawke and Keating governments tackle those issues. When the Hawke and Keating governments tackled the issues of free trade and tariff reform, the same voices of dissent and opposition came forward and said, ‘This will cost jobs.’ The same voices of dissent and opposition came forward and said, ‘We should not act ahead of the rest of the world.’ If we look back on those reforms and the benefits that they have delivered to the living standards of all Australians, the evidence is emphatic. All of the pretenders on that side of the parliament now like to pretend that they were hitching a ride on that train as it left the platform when it came to the economic reforms of the 1980s. They want to try and claim that mantle. They missed the train then, and today they are in danger of missing the train again.

Some of the smarter types on that side understand this, and one of the great challenges that they have from a public policy perspective and from a political perspective is that they are so divided on this issue. There are two camps in the Liberal Party. There are those that believe that climate change is real, that we need to take action and that the best way to do it is with a market based mechanism. They would consider themselves to be the true Liberals in the true Liberal tradition. Challenges of this nature, they would say, should be dealt with with a market based mechanism. They seem to be hiding at the moment, but I know that they are there, because when it came to the leadership ballot last time round Tony Abbott won by only one vote on this issue. The opportunity to vote on these issues will come again. But let us talk about the other camp. The other camp are the sceptics, and they are the ones that appear to be in the majority at the moment.

But the great difficulty that both of these camps have is that they cannot actually go out and sell what they believe in their heart of hearts, because it is not the Liberal Party policy. It is not the coalition policy. The coalition believe—or so they say—in reducing emissions by the same amount that we are committed to: five per cent by 2020 on 2000 levels. If you are going to try to achieve those cuts, you cannot argue the line that we see so many of you trying to argue: that climate change is not real. If it is not real, why are you wasting $30 billion of government funds—taxpayers’ funds—on a direct action policy that is an absolute sham, involves importing carbon credits from offshore and, in the end, will actually lead to an increase in carbon emissions by 17 per cent? That would mean that each family in this country will pay indirectly through their taxes—it might not be a specific levy, but I tell you what: indirectly they will pay—$720 to fund a climate change policy that is supposed to reduce emissions by five per cent but will increase them by 17 per cent.

It is a sham, and we will spend the next two years of this parliament shining a light on this sham. Those same people that found the courage to support action on climate change in the last parliament will be called to action, and they will be called to account. There will be people in electorates around this country—like the member for Bennelong, the member for Macquarie and the member for Brisbane—who will have to account to their electors, who believe that action should be taken on climate change. I will tell you the best evidence that the electors of Bennelong feel that way: they managed to convince even former Prime Minister John Howard that he needed to take action on climate change and, to his credit, he proposed to do so. And do you know what? As you all run away, scurrying away like cockroaches under the light, you will miss the train of economic reform and you will have to live with that. I tell you what: we will make you pay for that. In the same way as those that missed the boat last time round continue to pay, we will make you pay. (Time expired)

Consideration interrupted.

See this speech in context