David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Over summer, largely on the pages of The Australian, the Australian Labor Party revealed some quite disturbing views on taxation policy. It is very important to reflect on what the opposition said about the tax policy over summer, because what it basically means is that the opposition will be increasing the tax burden on ordinary Australians.

I will come to the specifics in a moment, but it is very important, when we talk about tax reform, which of course is an important and somewhat fashionable term, to differentiate between what tax reform is and what it is not. If you say you are conducting tax reform but at the end of the day all you are doing is simply raising taxes, that is not reform; that is just an old-fashioned tax increase. If, on the other hand, you consider the tax mix and you say, 'What is the most efficient way of raising tax so as to create as many jobs as possible', that is real reform. That can be done without raising the overall tax burden on Australians. The question is this: is it about the efficiency and the right taxes and not increasing the tax burden on Australians, which is the wrong thing to do? That is not reform, that is just raising taxes. And that is what those opposite want to do.

It is interesting to reflect on some of the comments that were made by senior members of the opposition over summer, and in particular a comment made by the shadow Treasurer in The Australian. He advises that serious policy work is underway, and he is stating very clearly, as the alternative Treasurer, that revenue and spending measures need to be on the table. So revenue measures, very clearly stated by the shadow Treasurer, need to be on the table. We can speculate about what those might be. Would they be, for instance, increases in superannuation taxes on Australians? Would they be further increases to fringe benefit taxes, as proposed prior to the last election to the tune of $1.8 billion? Would they be other job-killing business taxes, like the carbon tax and the mining tax? We do not know yet, but hopefully some time before the next election we will.

The fact that just a week later, in what seemed to be a somewhat coordinated approach on the editorial pages of The Australian, the shadow assistant Treasurer wrote an op ed, which he does quite often, and in this one he wept uncontrollably at the graves of the carbon and mining taxes. He really did. It is worth a read: in was in the 27 January edition and I highly commend it to you. He said the Abbott government has thrown out significant sources of revenue like the carbon tax and the mining tax, like these were just wonderful sources of revenue that we have foolishly thrown out. Of course, all we have done is substantially reduce the cost-of-living burden on ordinary Australians through the carbon tax and taken away so much uncertainty for the critical export industry of mining through the abolition of the incredibly poorly targeted and ineffective mining tax. But that is very clear from the opposition as to what they are proposing.

We know this is right because we know they introduced other taxes. We know they introduced capital gains tax in the eighties; we know they were behind the proposed increase to FBT prior to the election. So this rings true, doesn't it? The notion that the Labor Party would come to this place and say, 'The only way we can fix problems is by raising taxes'—that is absolutely what they will do. Tax reform is only reform if it is focused on the efficiency of the tax system. Supposed reform, which is just about making people pay more tax, does not deserve the use of the elegant term 'tax reform' because it is just old-fashioned left-wing politics. It failed in Western Europe. The last thing we want is to see that happen here in Australia.

You know when they do come out with this—I am sure there will be lots of big announcements, lots of flags and so on—and they put it in documents they will describe these increases as 'saves'. You will recall that the member for Lilley was quite fond of that actually. The notion that if you took money from Australian companies and businesses it was a 'save' is a really novel approach to the language. It is the wrong approach for Australia. It must be rejected. But let us be clear on what is coming from those opposite.

House adjourned at 21:30

See this speech in context