Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, the opposition remains opposed to this legislation, as we made very clear in our second reading debate speeches. But what we did indicate to the Senate was that if we moved into the committee stage, we would be seeking to make a very bad piece of legislation slightly less bad—if I can put it that way. Having said that, we will be opposing this legislation on the third reading. The reason is that the Labor Party have only put forward one reason why this legislation is necessary—that is, to fight inflation. That is the one reason that they have given for this legislation. Senator Carr, of course, has come in here and said it is all about his socialist doctrines and politics of envy and that they are not in the business of giving millionaires tax breaks et cetera. That might be the case if you are talking about Lamborghinis and Bentleys, but, quite frankly, not when you are talking about motor vehicles that cost $57,180.

But the Labor Party have come into this place saying this is about fighting inflation. I say to my friends on the crossbenches, ‘In keeping the government honest, in keeping the government accountable, you have to ask yourself this one very simple question: will this legislation do that which the government asserts—that is, fight inflation?’ We all know the answer to that. Labor senators, in their report to the Senate on this very legislation, at paragraph 2.19, confirmed that this legislation will in fact be inflationary—acting in complete contradistinction to that which the Labor Party asserted in introducing the legislation. So to my friends on the crossbenches, who assert that their role is to keep government honest, to keep government accountable, I ask them: how do they justify providing support for this legislation when it flies in the face of the government’s own assertions about the legislation? Why would they be voting for it when it is inflationary? I do not think there is anybody in this chamber now that would doubt that this legislation is inflationary, yet the government continues its mantra that somehow it needs this bill to fight inflation.

It does not make sense; it does not make economic sense. We all know that. Sure, you might want an increased taxation regime because you believe in the politics of envy or whatever—that is fine—but the government do not present this legislation on that premise. They present it to this chamber on the basis of fighting inflation and fighting inflation alone. And yet, their own senators, their own chair of the Senate economics committee, acknowledge that this legislation will be inflationary. So for those who parade themselves to the Australian people as keeping the government accountable, I simply ask them this question: how do you allow a government to get away with something like that?

But what is also very disturbing about this is that this legislation will hurt the Australian car manufacturing sector. Make no bones about it, that is clear, and I think everybody is agreed on that. The three Australian motor vehicle manufacturers that are left agree that it will hurt their industry; it will hurt jobs in the Australian car industry. Indeed, the Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers also believe it will hurt the Australian domestic market. So we have got it being inflationary, hurting Australian jobs, hurting Australian manufacturing, hurting innovation, and we got all of this before the Senate committee. You really do wonder what is left to promote this legislation to this Senate chamber. There is indeed nothing left.

Indeed, we have had a whole range of amendments suggested to us in relation to this legislation, some of which are, quite frankly, counterintuitive. I would say to my friend Senator Fielding in relation to his suggestion, and this is relevant to the opposition amendments, that in his first speech on the second reading of this legislation he expressed concern for the rural and regional communities—a very valid concern. But I think the government sold him a pup. He asked the government, as I understand it, to draw up some amendments, and now all he is concerned about are those families in rural and regional Australia that happen to be farmers, or primary producers, and somehow involved in the tourism industry, and then only if they have four-wheel drives. What about the families in rural and regional Australia whose breadwinner happens to be the local Australia Post contractor, or the local plumber, or the local vet, or the local general practitioner, who needs a four-wheel drive to get to and from their place of work? Those families clearly are not first families in the consideration of Family First. I cannot see the logic of carving out only primary producers but all those people who help primary producers being completely and utterly ignored. The plight of the primary producer is strong and it is very convincing. But can I say to Senator Fielding that the plight of the farmer is unfortunately shared by the plight of the local fencing contractor, or the local mechanic, or the local vet, who is also suffering because of the decline in rural and regional areas, especially where there is that terrible affliction of drought. So why would we say that only primary producers and tourism operators should get a benefit, and then only if they have four-wheel drives? It really does defy logic.

As a result, the opposition has proposed that there in effect be a two-tiered system of the luxury car tax. We do not think that there should be such a system, but if the majority of honourable senators are so minded then we are of the view that a two-tiered system may well lend itself to cover not just the primary producer, not just the tourism operator, but also the Australia Post contractor, also the plumber, also the vet, also the general practitioner and all the other people living in rural and regional Australia that suffer exactly the same issues and difficulties as the primary producers. That is why we are suggesting that the rate of the luxury car tax should be at 25 per cent from the current threshold of $57,180 through to $90,000. Then at $90,000 we have the new 33 per cent rate cutting in. We believe that the quite silly nonsense of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer getting up at question time trying to talk about this luxury car tax as applying to Porsches has been fully exposed by my colleague the leader of the National Party in this place, who said, ‘Show me a Lamborghini or a Bentley or a Rolls or whatever that you can buy for $57,180. She would be pretty clapped out or hot.’

It is great to see Senator Williams in the chamber because he supports this as well. If you believe in the luxury car tax then for those over the $90,000 mark we would suggest that what we need is, for want of a better term, a super luxury car tax. But to try to say that Mr and Mrs Average, who are concerned about their children and want a Toyota Tarago with the options, or somebody who wants a Commodore HSV with some options, buying in that range of up to $90,000 are somehow in the same category as someone who would buy a sports motor vehicle like a Porsche for four or five times that price is sophistry at its worst. It is twisting and it is designed to sell a false message to the Australian people.

We do not believe in the politics of envy on this side. We say that if you pay your GST and your luxury car tax then so be it. The more expensive the car, the higher proportion the 10 per cent and the 25 per cent rake in for the government in relation to each vehicle. But the point in relation to our amendment is very simply this: we will make no special exemption just for primary producers or just for tourism operators, deserving though they be. We want an exemption also for the mums and dads with their Toyota Taragos. We also want an exemption for all those other people in rural and regional Australia who quite properly need the sorts of four-wheel drives that Senator Fielding has been championing. I would suggest to honourable senators, especially on the crossbenches, that this would be a lot better and cleaner way of achieving a result for those who genuinely need a workhorse or a people mover in relation to their work and family needs in rural and regional Australia but also in other areas of Australia.

Let us not forget that there are many grey nomads these days who buy a well-equipped four-wheel drive to go around Australia. They are not millionaires. Some of them in fact have these four-wheel drives living in suburbia because they like to tow a caravan and, guess what, a Toyota Prius or a Hyundai Getz will not exactly do the job when you have got a big caravan. For safety you need a big car, and that is why they buy the heavier and well-appointed four-wheel drives. I also say that those who go recreational fishing cannot switch and change cars for the weekend. As a result, they have a four-wheel drive as their car of convenience throughout the year. Of course, they use it for their recreational purposes as well.

We believe the concerns of Family First can be fully addressed through this amendment. Then we would not have the situation of Senator Fielding having to champion only primary producers. Whilst I am sure he did receive all those emails that he read from, I wonder what he would say to the local plumber, fencing contractor, Australia Post contractor or vet—and the list goes on—as to why he chose not to benefit them in the same way that he would benefit the tourism industry and the primary producers.

Having said all that, there is still one fundamental flaw throughout this legislation, and that is the point on which I began. Labor asserts this legislation is needed to fight inflation. The crossbenchers say they are duty-bound to keep the government honest, so I invite them to keep the government honest by voting this legislation down in the third reading, because in supporting this legislation you will in fact be supporting a measure which is inflationary. No ifs, no buts—it is inflationary. It will do the exact opposite of that which the Labor Party asserted in its introduction. I seek leave to move opposition requests for amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 5590 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 15), omit the formula, substitute:

        (a)    if the *luxury car tax value is less than or equal to the *upper LCT threshold:

        (b)    if the luxury car tax value is greater than the upper LCT threshold, the sum of:

and

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 18), omit the formula, substitute:

        (a)    if the *luxury car tax value is less than or equal to the *upper LCT threshold:

        (b)    if the luxury car tax value is greater than the upper LCT threshold, the sum of:

and

(3)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 19 to 27), to be opposed.