Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

This is supposed to be a serious debate, but after hearing the last speaker one would very much doubt that. I tried to table, and at the end of my speech will again seek permission to table, a list of major cyclonic and other natural disasters that have occurred in our country since 1864. That list will show that every year there are one or two cyclones, one or two major flood events and continuing droughts. Never before in any of those cyclones, floods or droughts has any Australian government ever imposed a tax on infrastructure recovery. Why is that? It is because that is the normal function of government. The normal function of government is to deal with these natural calamities that everybody knows will confront our nation at some time in any one year or series of years.

I can go through this list and tell you some of the major cyclone events that I have had the misfortune to be involved in. There was Cyclone Agnes in 1956, a cyclone that came across Ayr where I lived in 1957 and Cyclone Beatrice in 1959. In fact there was also Cyclone Connie and another cyclone further north all in the one year. Was there any levy by the then Australian government to pay for the rebuilding of those towns? Was there ever any levy for rebuilding Darwin when it was flattened by a cyclone? Was there ever any levy for Cyclone Larry rebuilding? There was not because these rebuilding efforts by governments are part of the natural services of government. Any prudent government—and even prudent Labor governments in the past—has been able to manage infrastructure repair without the imposition of a levy.

It is important to make those who may be listening to this debate aware that the money from Labor’s proposed new tax is not going to go to individuals to help assuage some of the personal hurt that many people have suffered as a result of these floods, cyclones and fires. It is not going to go towards rebuilding houses or replacing refrigerators or getting a new wardrobe for those people who have lost everything; it is to go to state governments, mainly state Labor governments I regret to say, for them to do the repair work that is part of their normal activity of government. This levy is not going to go to individuals—and this needs to be made very clear—it is simply going to go to state Labor governments and other governments to do the work that those governments would normally be expected to do.

The previous speaker, Senator Bilyk, accused the coalition of playing politics. This is certainly an issue where politics should not be played. But let me tell you about the Labor Party. There was a devastating flood in Queensland, with the loss of life. What did the Queensland Premier do? She established the Premier’s flood relief fund. The Premier started that fund off with the Premier donating, I think, $1 million. Sorry, Premier Bligh, you did not give a $1 million donation. I and every other Queensland taxpayer donated $1 million. The flood relief fund is not the Premier’s flood relief fund; it is the Queensland people’s flood relief fund. Yet the coalition is accused by the Labor Party of playing politics, when the basest form of politics has been played by the Labor Party in this whole episode.

Senator Bilyk, who spoke before me, said, ‘This levy is for only one year.’ Can you believe the Labor Party imposing any tax for just one year? Let me remind you that, before the last federal election, Ms Gillard got on the soapbox, hand on heart, and said, ‘There will be no carbon tax.’ And, as a result of that assurance, many people who were a bit hesitant about voting for the new taxes that the Labor Party is so addicted to, took her at her word. They said, ‘We’re a bit uncertain, but she’s promised no new taxes, so we’ll vote for her.’ Those people rightly feel that they have been conned. They voted for Julia Gillard because she promised not to impose a tax and, within a couple of weeks of becoming Prime Minister, after a dirty deal with the Greens and the Independents, she said, ‘We’re going to have a carbon tax.’

Can you believe the Labor Party then when it says, ‘This levy will be for only one year?’ Nobody believes that. Not even senators sitting opposite would believe that. They know that the Labor Party is addicted to spending other people’s money—never their own—and it is addicted to taxing people to pay for their profligacy in these areas. You simply cannot trust Labor with money.

The most common comment I had from people in my electorate—before, after and during the cyclone—was to the effect, ‘When the flood came along and the public appeal went out, we donated money. Because of the extent of the flood we were even more generous than (a) we could afford to be, or (b) we have ever been before.’ Here was a major flood. The altruism of the Australian public came to the fore, and they said, ‘We will give till it hurts, because this is a huge disaster and the appeal will help individuals overcome their problems.’ Many people have told me the amount of money they gave—amounts that I know those people cannot really afford, but they wanted to give them. But, after being so generous, they then find that the Labor government comes in and double dips. It taxes them again for the same sort of generosity that they themselves showed. This is what is really annoying people. That is why, when you take a real survey—not the survey that was in the newspapers, which asked: would you support a levy to help people get over the flood?—and ask people, ‘Are you prepared to pay a levy to help state governments do the things that they are supposed to do, when you the public have already given very generously to help people?’ you find that most people are totally opposed to this levy. And they do not trust Labor with money.

I would remind you again that, a couple of weeks before the election, hand on heart, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the Labor Party, said, ‘There will be no carbon tax. I promise; trust me. When I say things, I mean them.’ Two weeks after the election, she said, ‘Yes, we’re going to have a carbon tax.’ Why would you believe the Labor Party? Why would you believe Julia Gillard when she says, ‘This levy will be for only one year.’ You can be assured that this is another form of taxation.

The Howard government were renowned for cutting taxation on individuals year after year. By contrast, the Labor Party are back, consistent with their old form, increasing taxation year after year. This proposed flood levy is simply part of Labor’s DNA: they must tax more to pay for their profligacy.