Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fraser for a delightful contribution! I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. What we do in this place is encourage those around our country to make a contribution to this debate, and I take the opportunity to encourage Labor to make a sound contribution to this debate.

It has become ever apparent that the Australian Labor Party and the Australian trade union movement, from a distance, are that intertwined that you can no longer differentiate between the two identities. So Australians should not be surprised that, when we enter into a debate about taxation, the techniques of intimidation, thuggery, corruption, coercion—all of the issues that have been spoken about in a royal commission—are their weapons of choice to try to intimidate the Australian public, to try to coerce them into unfounded truths. I welcome the Australian debate. I welcome the opportunity to stand and have the conversation around the fact that—and honourable members probably support this—we have an expenditure problem and not a revenue problem. We need, as a country, to start to address some of our expenditure issues. When we come to a position of consensus through those conversations, we will take our position on taxation to an election, for the Australian public to have the ultimate determination.

This year was to be the year of big ideas from the Australian Labor Party. This is the time in the debate that they should be bringing them out. This is the time that we need to see the big ideas coming forward from Labor. I would love to hear a contribution from the other side, something imaginative about, say, income splitting—having just returned from Canada. Why are we not having a conversation about income splitting and the benefits of trying to offset bracket creep, similar to what the Canadians do? Why are we not having a conversation about the participation rate of women in Canada being much higher than ours? There are some underlying factors to that. We have 1.9 per cent fertility; they have 1.6 per cent. Why are we not having a conversation about super? Why are we not talking about concessional tax rates? Bring those to the table.

We heard from the Treasurer recently about the average wage earner shifting into the second-highest tax bracket. We do not have a complex tax bracket. We have nil tax to $18,200. We have 19c, 32.5c, 37c and 47c tax brackets. It is not a complex system. We will have the majority of our average wage earners in the second-highest tax bracket. That is unacceptable as we move forward in an economy that we are looking to grow.

We are getting on with the job of growing the economy and growing jobs. We heard today, in question time, that 58,600 jobs were created in October—the largest monthly increase in employment since March 2012. So, in response to previous speakers about how we are getting on and growing the economy and can we be trusted, the proof is in our pudding. This brings the total number of jobs created over the past year to 315,000. It is the strongest pace of annual jobs growth since 2010. The youth unemployment rate fell to 12.2 per cent in October, falling more than two percentage points from its peak in November 2014, when it was 14.5 per cent. Yes, it is still too high in my electorate and it is still too high across the country. These jobs are being found in the tourism, hospitality and agricultural sectors.

There is room for a greater debate. I look forward to the epiphany debate to bring back the carbon tax. That is one of Labor's increased taxes—increase the Medicare levy, increase tax on cigarettes, a tax grab on superannuation savings and, of course, the mining tax was a cracker. (Time expired)

See this speech in context