Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the parliamentary secretary today because there are a few points of confusion that I would like to have cleared up. One relates to tax as a percentage of GDP and the other is with respect to the Asset Recycling Fund. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking earlier about the government's commitment to lowering taxes and it jogged my memory of the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet that came out before the last election. I have a trusty copy of it in my desk downstairs because I wave it about quite a bit. I wave it about because there seems to have been a bit of collective amnesia from those on the other side. That document talked about the coalition being committed to no new taxes and lower taxes. Indeed, when waving this document around during the 2010 election campaign, the Prime Minister said at one point that his very reason for being in politics was lower taxes and that this was a creed of the conservative side of politics.

My point of confusion here is that you look at the budget papers and they tell a very different story to the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet. In fact, the budget papers say that the level of tax as a percentage of GDP has not been this high since the time of the Howard government. From 2007 to 2013-14, during which time Labor was in government, tax as a percentage of GDP averaged 22.8 per cent, as the member for Rankin was outlining earlier. Let me go through the figures in the budget. In 2014-15, it will be 23.5 per cent of GDP; in 2015-16, it will be 24 per cent; in 2016-17, it will be 24.2 per cent; in 2017-18, it will be 24.7 per cent; and, in 2018-19, it will be 25.2 per cent. They say on that side of the House that we do not know much about numbers or budgeting, but I am pretty sure that it is going up. In opposition, they talked themselves into a bit of a hole on tax policy. Unfortunately, when they got into government they were not digging themselves out of the hole; they were digging up—they are not getting anywhere.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the government's own budget projections show that taxation receipts as a percentage of GDP will be higher than in any year of the previous Labor government and that taxes are projected to rise to levels not seen since the Howard government? Can the parliamentary secretary advise when the government projects to get back to the level of tax that existed when it came to office?

The second bucket of questions I have goes to the question of the Asset Recycling Fund. I am pleased the parliamentary secretary is here today, because it goes to a difference of opinion between the Liberal Party and the National Party. I hear they occur sometimes. Usually, they are behind closed doors; they do not usually fight in public. I understand this fund is still being set up and the details are being worked through, so I will not go to the financing of this fund—although there are legitimate questions there. My questions go more to the funding guidelines and what projects will be eligible for funding under the Asset Recycling Fund. I ask this because the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, was in my electorate on Sunday.

An honourable member: He was lost!

He was not lost. He was doing what he does quite a bit these days: claiming credit for a Labor infrastructure project. That is how we knew he was not lost. He has plenty of form there. That weekend, when asked whether the federal government would consider funding the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel Project, the very important project being led by the Victorian state Labor government, he said: 'We will probably receive approaches in relation to that project. If we receive these approaches then we will have them assessed by Infrastructure Australia and make a decision.'

This is very confusing to me because, recently, the Prime Minister told 3AW, in Victoria: 'We do not fund urban rail projects. We fund roads of national significance. We fund nationally significant freight-rail projects but we do not fund commuter rail.' We have heard this kind of confusion before. During the last Victorian election, then-Premier Napthine—desperate for some credibility on public transport infrastructure after three years of doing nothing—tried to claim that he had talked Tony Abbott around on funding public transport. He said: 'I've certainly have had some discussions about Tony Abbott's issue with the rail tunnel and he has softened. He has indicated to me that they are prepared to have an ongoing discussion on key infrastructure, like the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel.'

Despite this being an election campaign the PM was not gentle and he corrected this miscommunication, that very day. He said: 'I would dispute that that is the case. What I say in public and what I say in private is the same: we will not be contributing to the Melbourne Metro Rail Scheme. I have made that absolutely clear.' Can the parliamentary secretary clear this up? Will funds from the Asset Recycling Fund be available for the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel?

See this speech in context