Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I first saw this matter of public importance on the Notice Paper, I wondered what Labor was up to. This is the party that hates talking about the economy—they have no economic plans, they have no economic ideas, they think taxing people more is going to somehow get us into greater prosperity. When they talk about the economy, it is usually in the context of what they want to raid next. It's trusts, multinationals, superannuation funds, high-income earners, low-income earners—God help you if you earn an income—small businesses or people who want to own a property. Mr Deputy Speaker, God help you if your children have piggy banks, because these people are out to get them. I well remember the shadow Treasurer's face when the Leader of the Opposition stood up to give his budget reply speech. He looked like a gibbon being shown a magic trick—'Oh, where did that coin come from from behind my ear? How did you put that there?' The absolute perpetual fear on his face, as he realised that somehow he was going to have to come up with an economic policy that held their disparate policies all together, was just extraordinary. Yet he has the gall to come into this House and talk more about what Labor's going to do for the economy.

It may come as a surprise to the ALP, but no country in the history of the world has ever taxed its way to prosperity; it has only ever come down to endeavour and making sure that people invest. If I am to take Labor at face value—always a dangerous thing—inequality is at a 75-year high. Yet this happened under the most redistributive tax system in the OECD. If you are in the top 20 per cent of taxpayers in Australia, for every dollar you pay you get 32c back in government benefits. If you're in the bottom 20 per cent, for every dollar you pay in tax you get $364 back in government benefits. The top 10 per cent of income earners in this country pay almost 50 per cent of personal income tax received by the government. The top one per cent of income earners pay a staggering 17 per cent of all tax received. The top 0.3 per cent of individuals pay 58 per cent of capital gains tax. The rich don't pay their fair share in this country; they pay everyone's share of tax.

I guess you would argue that, if inequality were at a 75-year high under that tax system, you'd want to end it. But, no, the people on the other side here want to double down. I take it, by their own logic, that they want to make inequality worse in this country. The only conclusion you can reach is that Labor do not believe a word of their economic policy. Having watched the shadow Treasurer's face as his leader stood up to reply to the budget speech, I believe that he doesn't believe a single word of their economic policy. Labor, so far, has proposed $150 billion in new taxes—taxes that will reduce economic growth, taxes that will reduce employment and taxes that will reduce the incentives and entrepreneurship in this country that provide jobs and growth. Just look at Labor's record. What do they want to do with all this extra money? The last time they were in government, they spent it on school halls. They spent it on pink batts. They spent it on detention centres, because the now shadow Treasurer was immigration minister then and he couldn't control the borders of this country.

Under this government, taxes have gone down and employment has gone up. Under this government, 240,000 jobs have been created. What thanks do we get from those opposite? Nothing. Yes, that's right. Those opposite cannot name a single policy they have to create a single job in this country. Oh, sorry, I may have got that wrong! The member for Isaacs does want to create a royal commission to investigate banks—another $100 million to his friends at the bar. I reckon the shadow cabinet works like this: they have this great idea, they have no way of knowing how to actually make the idea work, so they just say to themselves, 'We know! We'll just wait until those opposite get elected and they can work it out for us.'

See this speech in context