Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston's contribution was much the same as the others: a lot of noise about no outcome and a lot of aspirational statements with no concrete foundation to them. You would imagine that the purpose of a tax summit would be to discuss and determine some sort of reform with some concrete measures for the future. But, lo and behold, as with most things this government does, it achieved nothing. The increase in the tax-free threshold had already been announced through the carbon tax—which has far greater effects on the economy than any compensation will ever achieve, and no compensation will be great enough for people who have lost their jobs.

This tax forum was just the latest in a long line of forums over the years. In total there have been eight since 1950. The latest prior to this one was the Henry review, of course, which had 130-odd recommendations of which the government succeeded in implementing two. They have announced another 30-odd reviews but, again, there are no outcomes and no practical direction in which way they want to go.

Since this government were elected in 2007, they have succeeded in introducing 19 new or increased taxes. Last time I studied any economic theory, the actual solution to growing your economy and building a stronger economy for the future was not more taxation but less taxation. A recent study by the Cato Institute in the United States bears that out: the higher you make the taxes, the less revenue you generate, because people, particularly at the wealthy end, try to find ways to minimise their tax, because they have the resources to do so. If, however, you lower taxes, your tax revenue actually increases, because there is less incentive to minimise your tax and there is more incentive to grow your business or grow your wealth. I suggest that perhaps this government start to expand the range of literature they read.

The coalition, by way of contrast, are committed to serious tax reform and we have long proven our commitment in doing so. Whilst there has been plenty of debate around the carbon tax and commentary on our introduction of the goods and services tax, the result of the introduction of that was that we reduced the income tax payable by 80 per cent of Australians to such an extent that they paid no more than 30c in the dollar. There are a number of stamp duties abolished, including the stamp duty on the transfer of shares. Given that we have a very active share market and our superannuation funds invest significant amounts in the share market, it helps reduce the cost of our superannuation retirement portfolios.

The coalition, despite the protestations of the government, has a plan for a more productive economy. At the heart of this plan will be the provision of competent, effective and stable government. The coalition will stop wasteful spending, will rescind punishing taxes and will encourage greater productivity and workforce participation. We have been very clear today that we will scrap the carbon tax because that will mean lower prices for electricity, gas and fuel.

In the spirit of debate, let us look at the carbon tax. This is where I have a real concern about the modelling that has been produced. There is the example of a cotton T-shirt and what energy goes into making that T-shirt. Energy is required to grow and harvest the cotton, transport it to the factory, and make, package and transport the chemicals used to bleach, dye or condition the cotton. Energy is used to run the machines on which the T-shirt is processed, it is used to create the packaging materials, it is used to ship the T-shirt to the store and it is used to keep the air-conditioning and lights on in the store. This does not include the energy we require to go to the store to purchase that T-shirt. Given the government's track record in projecting expenses in other things, I have serious concerns that those effects are properly modelled and that the compensation package is even going to get close to covering those costs. (Time expired)

See this speech in context