Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

John Kenneth Galbraith described trickle-down economics as 'the less than elegant metaphor that, if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows'. For the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, this analogy may as well be tattooed on their brows. Trickle-down economics is the mantra and the gospel of this government. It's the snake oil they peddle and the broken ideology at the centre of their politics and their policy. It's the broken ideology that they have come into this place to prosecute on behalf of their mates in big business, who fill Liberal Party coffers with one hand and suppress wages and keep megaprofits ticking over with the other. It's a broken ideology. Now, all around the world, people are revolting against it, and young people, in particular, are standing up.

If you listen to this government, you would think that a big corporate tax cut is the first stepping stone towards a perfect society, where everyone has a well-paid job, everything is cheap and everyone lives in a nice big house. If you listen to this government, you would hear the best way to make Australia a better place isn't by properly funding schools and hospitals or by investing heavily in the infrastructure of tomorrow—and it is certainly not by taking action on dangerous global warming that's threatening our way of life and it's certainly not by looking after vulnerable people. Apparently—apparently—cutting the corporate tax rate is the secret to unlocking the vast potential of our society.

Apparently, if we give the very rich more slices of the pie, all our problems will be solved. Well, that's not what the analysis suggests. Late last year the tax office released a transparency report which showed almost 680 companies, with more than $100 million in income, paid no tax in 2014-15—680 companies! At the same time we have companies in Australia who are making a motza and paying no tax, the government's saying, 'Well, perhaps we should give these companies a tax cut.' Why not start by asking the ones who are paying no tax to pay their fair share before we talk about giving handouts to the very wealthy?

In the lead-up to the election, research by the Australia Institute showed that there is no correlation between corporate tax rates and economic growth in OECD countries—that companies with lower company tax rates have lower standards of living, measured as purchasing power of GDP per capita. It also found that wages and mixed income had declined a share of GDP as corporate tax rates have been lowered and that average unemployment rates have risen as company tax rates have been lowered.

But this government doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign. Instead, the Prime Minister, along with everyone else in his government, has taken a leaf out of Donald Trump's book by trying to convince us that tax is somehow an emotional or moral burden for society that they are courageously and selflessly ridding us of. These people are cradling the dying tenets of neo-Liberalism in their arms. They are desperately fanning the flames of fear around this building every time question time rolls around. One might ask: how has it come to this? Alarmingly, the answer is all too familiar, because some of the biggest problems with politics today can be traced back to former Prime Minister Abbott, the member for Warringah, who has helped poison the debate. While current Prime Minister Turnbull pretends he's capable of engineering a mature conversation about economics, he's just in lock step with former Prime Minister Abbott. He's following in his predecessor's footsteps.

Ultimately, the point of this whole big show is a distraction. It's a way of trying to distract the Australian people from the stark reality that's bearing down and that people are feeling every day: inequality is very real in this country and is getting worse, wage growth has stalled and youth unemployment is worryingly high and hasn't come back to normal levels since the GFC. This means that we are condemning hundreds of thousands of young people to life without ever knowing a secure income or a proper job. All of that is happening under this government's watch. Their answer is to say, 'Well, the problem is that the big banks are paying too much tax.'

According to Oxfam, the top one per cent in this country have over 22 per cent of the wealth, and the top one per cent in this country own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. Just think about that: the bottom 70 per cent of Australian have less combined wealth than the top one per cent. That's the kind of US-style society that we're heading towards. We hear reports that the Commonwealth Bank has made a record profit, even after allegedly breaching money laundering and terrorism finance laws, and then the government says that the big banks deserve a tax cut.

Let's just consider the government's argument for a moment. The government says, 'If we cut the tax rates to big companies, they're going to somehow employ more people.' Do you really think that, if the big four banks get $7 billion in tax cuts, as the government wants to give them, they're going to use that to suddenly employ all of those young Australians who are currently finding life tough because they haven't got a job? No. It's going to go straight to their profits—straight to their bottom line. The banks aren't crying out and saying, 'We'd love to employ more people, if only we paid less tax.' It's just going to be a big gift to the big banks and it will come at a cost, because that's less money that this government has to spend on schools or hospitals or looking after people who are doing it tough. In a society where the bottom 70 per cent of us have less than the top one per cent of us, by having less money available to build the common good so that it can give the big banks a tax cut is going to increase inequality.

They're not even keeping the fact that this government is owned by the top one per cent a secret. There was a fundraiser last year in the lead-up to the election for the Treasurer and the member for Higgins. It was sponsored by one of the big four banks—the same bank that the member for Higgins used to work at. The government aren't even keeping it a secret that they're sponsored by the big banks.

The revolving door between politics and big business is still spinning, and it's showing no sign of slowing down. It's grotesque and, sadly, it has been successful. As hard as it is to say, right now greed and corporate interests are doing very well in the battle in Australia. They gaze down at everyone else with contempt and contemplate new ways to erode the middle and working classes in this country.

What we should be doing here in this place is standing up to powerful interests. What we should be running here is a democracy that is truly representative, that looks out for the interests of regular people, not just the interests of big business, who can afford to employ the lobbyists and the ex-politicians and then come here and demand a tax cut. What this place needs to remember is that everyday people built those companies and that those companies would be nothing without everyday people working for them. This place needs to remember that, to fund the essential services which we rely on, which we all use and which we're all proud of, we need everyone to pay their fair share of tax. I urge the politicians of this country to stop this capitulation. The Labor Party has followed in the Greens' policy footsteps before; the Liberal Party has even followed in the Greens' policy footsteps before. They should do it again, because it is appalling that this government has the guts to stand up here, knowing how many people are unemployed or underemployed and want more work but can't get it and knowing that young people are doing it tough, and say, 'We want the big four banks to get an extra few billion dollars a year because they are not making enough.'

Well, this race to the bottom has to end. The concentration of wealth at the top has to end. As long as the people in power in this place are owned by the corporate interests that put them in, we won't get any meaningful reform. Some standards do need to be raised in this place. This government has, and will have, a lot to answer for if it goes ahead with this giant wasteful tax cut. If the Australian people had a choice between ensuring everyone could get their kids to the school of their choice and having it well funded and knowing they would be looked after in a public hospital if they got sick, knowing that it would mean asking the very rich in this country to start paying some tax instead of getting a tax cut, or giving the big four banks a tax cut, I know what most people would choose.

What is at stake with this bill is nothing more than, and nothing less than, the beginning of the erosion of egalitarianism in Australia and of the principle that in Australia, no matter where you come from or how much money you have, if you get sick the hospital will look after you. If you need to go to a doctor, they can see you without demanding your credit card first. In Australia, everyone gets to go to school, TAFE or university, no matter how much money they have. What's at stake is our belief that that is a fundamental principle that beats at the heart of this society. If we believe that, we've got to fund it. The question then is: who should we ask to foot the bill? The answer is very, very simple: those footing the bill should be the companies which are making world-leading record profits—they should be asked to chip in their fair share. Those 600-odd companies earning over $100 million a year that are currently paying no tax should be made to pay their legal minimum. If we do that and if we get rid of those unfair tax breaks for the people at the top, there will be enough money to make sure Australia is a place where everyone is looked after. We will be able to preserve egalitarianism in this country. If we think the solution to our current problems is to become more like the United States, then we are in strife. If government backbenchers stand up here and say, 'We have to do this because Donald Trump has done it,' then we are in serious strife. I do not want to outsource the government of this country to Donald Trump. I do not want our decisions about what is right for people in this country to be made by a reckless, dangerous president, who will do everything he can to wreck his own country and grow the gap between the rich and everyone else. If you believe that Australia is a place where everyone has a place, a country where everyone should be treated equally, no matter how much money they've got, and if you believe that the point of government is to make sure that everyone gets looked after and is can get the education and health care they want, no matter how much money they have, then you will vote against this bill.

See this speech in context