Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Trust is in short supply in politics these days, in part because the space to have reasoned conversations is so narrow. Pointscoring in politics, magnified by the media, means policymaking is dictated by the headlines, that are ultimately geared towards short-term political outcomes—that is, three-yearly elections—rather than the long-term future of the nation.

The conversation about the stage 3 tax cuts is a good example. The Prime Minister is accused of breaking a promise, and, for some members of my community and elsewhere, that fact has overtaken the substance of the policy change which, in the circumstances, I think is the right call. I don't dismiss the concerns about the integrity of political discourse. However, I would argue that rebuilding trust through reasoned conversations is critical to enabling policy shifts like this when circumstances change.

The changes to stage 3 presented to the parliament this week do not represent tax reform, and the discussion around this cements my view that we're overreliant on income tax and that we must take braver steps on tax reform. To sustain a fair, equitable and prosperous society that supports our young and our old, we have no choice but to create a broader tax base. I would argue that many voters realise that.

Everyone wants to pay less tax, and bracket creep, for example, is a real problem. Right now, we're expected to be grateful to governments when they announce pre-election tax cuts which return some of the bracket creep that has robbed taxpayers in the intervening years. That's why I'm arguing for tax indexation, so that taxpayers are compensated for the impact of inflation every year, not just when a government deigns to do so for political purposes. Not only would it be more equitable, not only would be fairer, but it would also take politics out of it.

Meanwhile, as I have been saying since before the 2022 election, the government needs to be brave and tackle once-in-a-generation, everything-on-the-table tax reform. That means everything: income tax, consumption tax, company tax, property tax, property tax—and yes, that includes negative gearing—and multinational tax, particularly the resource rent tax. After I talked about this before the election, the Liberal Party distributed flyers into letterboxes saying that I was trying to take away the family home. Of course, that was false, but it is emblematic of the lack of capacity to have a conversation—a reasoned conversation—about these issues. Once these changes passed through parliament, we'll still be in the predicament where the budget will not be able to provide the services—especially for our children—that citizens of a prosperous community have a right to expect. Taxing higher-income earners ever more and more will not solve the problem. If we don't act now, we'll be condemning future generations to a less-prosperous future with fewer opportunities, poorer jobs, worse health, lower standards of education and less-affordable housing. They will be unable to reap the benefits of cleaner, greener, cheaper and more reliable energy and technology.

I've encouraged the government to be braver, arguing for a war profits tax on our multinational gas producers, a more significant return from the PRRT and an end to fossil fuel subsidies. The revenue would boost the bottom line and provide the immediate wherewithal for the government to ease the pressure on households and businesses further.

Apart from inflation, productivity is our No. 1 economic problem, but for too long we've ignored one of the significant steps to its solution—that is, keeping more women in the workforce. Overseas examples are instructive. In Australia and in Scandinavia, female workforce participation at the age of 25 is comparable but by age 30, female participation in Australia is 10 per cent lower and remains that way. Analysis by the Australia Institute indicates that if we had Scandinavian female participant rates, our economy would be $60 billion or 3.2 per cent bigger. And guess what? Lower tax and more take-home pay means more women work or women work more. Well, blow me down with a feather! Giving women more opportunities, taxing resources more effectively to facilitate the shift to a cleaner, greener economy, taking the politics out of tax—they are three of the very good reasons for real tax reform. The government says it has changed its mind because circumstances have changed. Well, circumstances are always changing, and we've had no substantial change to the tax system for a quarter of a century. It is time.

See this speech in context