Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This is an important debate, and I certainly welcome the motion put by the member for O'Connor about GST revenue for Western Australia. Hopefully, that will allow for consideration of GST revenue more widely, as mentioned by the previous speaker. At this stage, without having spoken to Mr Washer, I look forward to talking to him to clarify his final comment about raising the GST at the tax forum—did he use the word 'raising' to mean bring it up or directly to mean increase it? But we can clarify that later.

GST revenue is a Commonwealth tax under Commonwealth law and is distributed to the states through the Grants Commission. At times I can see the frustration, as we are seeing in this motion, of people, whether they are sandgropers, cockroaches or cane toads, who feel as if they may be ripped off through the system that has been established. I do not think that was the intent of the founders in 2001, when the GST was brought in; nor do I think that was the intent when the Grants Commission was formed in 1933. I think we are once again seeing an example of the clash between the foundation documents and the considerations around whether we are a federation of states or a Commonwealth working with the common interest in mind. Anyone who wants to look at whether the Commonwealth should even have things like surpluses, which dominate debate in this chamber quite often, should go to section 94 of the Constitution and reflect on whether money raised at a Commonwealth level should, even on a monthly basis, go through to the states for their infrastructure and service needs.

The terms 'vertical fiscal imbalance' and 'horizontal equalisation' are great Canberra-speak. As terms alone, they should win awards for disengaging the Australian population. But those terms really are code in many ways for an attack on states' rights going back to considerations around our founding document. In that context I can understand the frustration of the member for O'Connor. I certainly congratulate him for bringing the motion forward. I understand he is intimately involved in the GST review committee and was agitating to get it up and running. Hopefully, through that process, per the amendment that has been moved, this can be part of the considerations of that important review.

We have a national tax forum coming up in the next six weeks, and I hope that government does not dodge the elephant in the room—considerations in and around the GST as raised by a previous speaker. They have come up in a series of forums that I attended during the two-week sitting break at meetings at in Walcha and Port Macquarie; there was also a Tax Institute forum in Sydney. If we are going to have an open, honest, frank and full debate around tax, tax collection and how we get fewer taxes in this country, it at least has to be part of the considerations before conclusions are drawn.

I think the Henry review process made some simple recommendations. There are 125 taxes in this country. Ten of them do 90 per cent of the lifting. That means 115 of them do 10 per cent of the work. We can, if we want, combining the state and federal governments, work hard to significantly reduce the number of taxes. That, more than anything else we do in the area of tax and tax collection, would assist the Australian community and the small business community. I hope this motion fits in with the broader conversation we are about to have about tax. I hope there is a commitment across the board for fewer taxes in this country and that we work on significantly reducing the 125 taxes to a more efficient and manageable number. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context