Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

For many months, we have been told by this government that we have a budget emergency. We have been told by the government that we have a debt crisis and that we are going to run out of money. Indeed, I think the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, went so far as to say that we were running out of money and the cupboard was bare. He effectively declared the country bankrupt. You would think that, faced with a crisis of such herculean proportions—conjuring up images of the soup kitchens of the Great Depression—a government would be looking very hard at potential revenue measures and savings. It might look at the huge savings that could be gained from the enormous fuel subsidies given to industries like the mining industry. It might look at all of the depreciation benefits given to those same industries—worth billions of dollars. It may even look at things like superannuation tax concessions—things that benefit, disproportionately, people on very high incomes over those on low incomes. It might even look at something like negative gearing. It might look at revenues and it might say, 'Well, maybe there is a case, given that our big four banks are so profitable and that we in fact underwrite their success, to say that they should be obliged to provide a fair return.' It might look at the current mining tax and say, 'Well, why not strengthen it? Why not look at how we can ensure that we get a fairer share of the revenue from the mining industry?'

It might even look at the industries that are ensuring they pay very little tax here, looking for tax havens overseas and involved in one of the greatest corporate tax avoidance schemes that we have seen. You would think that might be a rational, reasonable reaction when faced with this budget crisis that lies ahead of us, but what is their reaction? Our budget emergency is so extreme, so severe and so catastrophic that, faced with that enormous challenge, one of the first acts of this government is, on this day, to get rid of $20 billion of government revenue. Sit back and think about that for a moment. This is a budgetary crisis of such enormous proportion that today we are wiping $20 billion from the budget bottom line. If there were ever proof that this budget emergency, this debt crisis, is simply a fabrication—something concocted in a coalition backroom today—you have seen the evidence.

The debates today have not just been debates about the mining tax and, earlier, the clean energy laws and the carbon tax. They are not simply debates about those taxes in isolation. They are debates about the sort of country we want to be. They are debates about priorities. They are debates about whether we can provide the things that the Australian community wants. We have choices. We can choose to keep the revenue from the mining tax. We could have chosen to keep the revenue from the carbon tax and we could have invested billions of dollars in health care, education, science, research and development, and vital infrastructure. We could have done that. We could have chosen to invest that money in the things that the Australian community say, time and time again, they want their government to do.

The other choice is this: we abolish those taxes and we slug the sick, the poor and the young in an effort to implement our agenda, which is a harsh agenda, that says, 'Get out of the road, Government. If you're sick, if you're poor or if you're young, we're no longer going to look after you.' It is a great tragedy because we had an opportunity today to not just save the mining tax but improve it, strengthen it and return to the original tax proposed by Kevin Rudd, backed by Treasury, to bring in billions of dollars more of revenue. It is a fair tax. It is a tax that says: 'If you're making extraordinary profits, most of which go offshore, you owe the country a fair share,' because the resources, the minerals, underneath our feet belong to every one of us. That is what we should have been doing today.

How do you reconcile where we have got to? How do you reconcile the mismatch between the rhetoric and the actions of the government? How can you understand, at a time when we have this enormous budget emergency, that we are slugging the people who can least afford it and we are abolishing sensible sources of revenue? I think the answer represents everything that is wrong in Australian politics. I think that is where it comes from. It is a testament to the power of lobbyists and vested interests who have unprecedented access to the decision makers in this country. Every day you see them walking through the corridors, knocking on doors, inside and outside of ministerial offices—people who are here to advance their own interest ahead of the national interest. The line between what is a lobbyist and what is a decision maker has become more and more blurred in this place. We are now seeing people from industry becoming employed as members of staff and, indeed, in some cases, becoming members of parliament, doing the bidding of big business rather than putting the national interest first.

It is not just a story of the power of special interests; it is also a story about the lack of political courage and conviction. It is the lack of political courage and conviction that gives the special interests in this place their power. We no longer believe enough in a cause to take a stand and say, 'We will fight this and see it through.' We have seen it with a number of other reforms. We saw it with poker machines; we saw it recently with junk food advertising and junk food labelling; we saw it with alcohol—we have seen it with a number of areas where the interests of a few are put ahead of the national interest. We need to realise that those groups only have their power because we give it to them, because we are not prepared to take up the fight. We are prepared to cave-in in the face of cashed-up advertising campaigns. We need to ensure that we put the interests of people who want a decent education, decent health care and, if they are down on their luck, welfare support. We have to put their interests first.

It is also a story about the huge disconnect between our politicians and the community. There is an emerging disconnect. When a government chooses to abolish sensible revenue measures and implement a budget so harsh, so brutal and so severe—a budget that effectively destroys the social contract that was built over decades—you know something is wrong.

We have heard a lot of discussion about mandates and this government's mandate to implement these policies. But these choices were never put to the Australian community. We now have a government that is governing not because it was honest enough to put these choices to the Australian community but simply because it is not the current opposition. That is what the last election was about. The election of 2013 could have been summarised in this way: vote for us because we're not them. That is your mandate: to govern because you are not the opposition. It was an election campaign that was devoid of any vision, ideas or policies of substance. So do not mistake your election victory as a mandate to abolish these sources of revenue and, instead, tax the sick, the poor and the young. Do not make that mistake. The truth is that you were too frightened to put those choices to the Australian community. And do you know why you were frightened? Because you knew you would lose.

Faced with the choice: do we want a fair mining tax, a decent education system, a decent health system and welfare support for people when they are down on their luck? We know what the Australian community want. They have said it time and time and time again. Most Australians want decent health care. Most Australians want to be able to go to the doctor and not have to think about their bank balance before they do. Most families want to send their kids to university and not have to think about what the legacy of that education will be for their children.

Most Australians want adequate investment in infrastructure. They want fast, frequent and reliable public transport. They want investment in science. They do not want cuts to CSIRO. They want to see that institution expand and grow. They want investment in research and development. And they would support a stronger mining tax if they knew that that was the choice in front of them. But you did not give them that choice, because you lacked the courage to do it. You knew your vision was so brutal, so unpopular, so lacking in support that you were afraid to put it to the Australian community. Instead, we have a government that uses the word 'mandate' as though it has some meaning. You are only governing because you were dishonest and because you are not the opposition. That is why you are here.

So I simply say this to Prime Minister Abbott: 'If you are determined to scrap these taxes and shred the social contract that we fought so hard over so many decades to establish, understand this—you do it at your peril.'