Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Was he being rude? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Higher marginal tax rates for lower and middle income earners will be a consequence as well. In addition, its proposals will have an impact on the budget. These are very significant issues for the Australian community. As I said in my initial remarks, I am not a climate sceptic. I am prepared to see Australia play its part, but I do not believe Australia ought to be leading the rest of the world, as the member for Moreton suggested.

What I want to do today is to put in context some of the comments that the government members have been making about former Prime Minister Howard and the commitments made by the former Howard government. It is important to understand that the Howard government was quite prepared to be part of a world solution, but John Howard in his own comments since Copenhagen has made clear his disappointment that the rest of the world was not ready to come on board at that time. That had an impact on his view as to the way in which the commitments that were made by his government ought to be seen.

I say to honourable members opposite that if they want to know the way in which substantial tax reform ought to be implemented in this country they should follow the lead of John Howard. John Howard was a Prime Minister who was able to put in place very clear and significant tax reform. Its impact on the Australian economy has been commented on favourably. The Howard government went to the Australian people seeking a mandate for the direct tax change—that is, the GST—that it intended to implement. Members opposite have been prepared to say that Howard at an earlier point in time said 'there would be no GST under a government I lead'. He conscientiously went to the Australian people at another election after he made that commitment. I remember well fighting the election campaign on that issue. That is quite opposite to the way in which this government is endeavouring to implement this change—I will not call it a reform.

This change is clearly a change that the Prime Minister said before the last election should not be anticipated. But, even worse than that, the government are trying to force this issue through the parliament without adequate scrutiny. I encourage them to look back and even to reconsider the approach they are taking and use the approach the Howard government agreed on in the consideration of the GST. The Howard government and the coalition agreed to four separate parliamentary committees to inquire into the GST. They had four months in which to report. No debate on the measure occurred in the parliament after the introduction of the measure. All the committees had non-government majorities and were overwhelmingly chaired by Labor. The coalition submitted itself and its policies to total public scrutiny, and there is the difference.

We are debating this measure today that was introduced into the parliament only on Tuesday, yesterday. We are debating it knowing that there is to be one committee that will scrutinise it, with very little time to be able to thoroughly address those issues, and knowing that the matter is being considered under a guillotine. This is not the way in which substantial economic reform in this nation, if it is claimed to be that, should be achieved. The Howard model was far better, more appropriate and far more honourable because John Howard sought to make changes after he had the endorsement of the Australian people at an election. These proposals have never been endorsed by the Australian people at an election.

See this speech in context