Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Hansard source

Between 2007 and 2012 I was happily working away in my family business but I was strongly of the opinion that this country faced real problems. In the four years I have been in this place—and the Leader of the Opposition talked about division—I have taken great pride in representing one of the most culturally diverse seats in federal parliament and standing up to unite our community at every turn. There is no us and them—and the Leader of the Opposition used that term in his speech. There is no us and them; there is just us. I have been saying this for four years.

I am glad the Leader of the Opposition spoke at least a little bit about the numbers because the thing that drove me to this place—the thing that made me turn my back on my career for a little while before I go back to it—is the gross misunderstanding of the gravity of the challenge that this country actually faces. You hear the term 'structural budget' used—it is used day in and day out—but it is never explained. Between 2013 and 2014 former Treasurer Hockey brought down the Intergenerational report. It happens every 10 years and looks 40 years into the future. It belled the cat. In the next 40 years our population will grow in the 65-plus-age bracket at three times the rate that it will in the zero-to-65-age bracket.

In 1910 in this country we introduced the pension. We set the retirement age at 65. Why did we do that? Because the average life expectancy in 1910 was 55. No-one got there. If you did, it was a rarity. The pension was a genuine safety net for those who were considered old in those days. In the next 40 years average life expectancy will reach 92 years of age for a female and 90 years of age for a male. You will work between 18 and 65 or 67, depending on where the retirement age is moved to, and you will retire after that. If you live on social security from zero to 18 you will most likely be the recipient of a public education and the recipient of universal health care. You will work between 18 and 65 and pay tax. Between 65 or 67 and 92 four out of five of us will live on a pension. That is the structural budget deficit. What does it look like? Where is the equality built into this system?

The Leader of the Opposition so quickly passed over—he did use the term, and he was correct—the fact that almost one-third of the workers inside Australia's tax system sit in our middle tax bracket. That 37.3 per cent pay 28.7 per cent of the tax. Where has the equity always been in Australian politics? It has been in our progressive taxation system. As we speak our top rate of tax is 49c in the dollar. What does that mean for me coming from a business background? The Australian government is a joint venture partner with everyone who pays 49c in the dollar in tax. The Leader of the Opposition uses—and used in the election campaign—the example of the taxpayer earning $1 million. He mentioned the $16,000 tax cut for that taxpayer, which we took to the election. What he does not say is that if you earn $1 million a year in this country, under the scheme as it sits today, you will pay $460,000 in tax—an effective tax rate of 46c in the dollar. If the deficit levy expires, the marginal tax rate will go back to 47c in the dollar. That will mean that if you earn $1 million you will pay $443,000 or an effective rate of 44.3c in the dollar. If you earn the median wage in this country, $80,000, you will pay $16,000 in tax—an effective rate of 21c in the dollar. That is where the equality in this country lies and where it will always lie.

Those opposite want to talk about the composition of those that pay tax, but they do not want to focus on what makes taxpaying fair. If you want to know what it is, here is the break-up: if you earn less than $18,200 a year in this country, you pay no tax, due to the coalition government.

See this speech in context