Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We have been told in the last 18 months by this government that we have a budget crisis in Australia. If there is a budget crisis in this country, it is not an expenditure crisis, it is not an entitlement crisis; it is a revenue crisis. My party, very proudly, played a significant role in the clean energy package and a price on carbon. That price on carbon over the forward estimates under a costing by the Parliamentary Budget Office would deliver $18 billion in revenue to this country.

With the ruthless and cynical campaign by this government going into the last election about axing the mining tax and the carbon tax, what they did not tell you was that they were axing billions of dollars in revenue that could be used in our economy. It could be reallocated towards transformative behaviour to move the Australian economy and to diversify the Australian economy in areas of renewable energy, science, technology and innovation, diversifying the risks of being reliant on a mining economy and creating new, clean, green and clever jobs across this country. That revenue could be used for a whole range of important things in this country like giving a tax break to low-income earners. That is exactly what we did. With the mining tax we reallocated money towards the small business sector—$5.4 billion to be precise—which, incidentally, was ripped up by the Liberal government at the last budget. It was replaced in this new budget—rather cynically as a new measure—but most of the measures were similar.

A budget, to be balanced, needs revenue and, of course, we have expenditures on the other side. A focus on cost saving that attacks the most vulnerable in our society was never going to get through the Senate because we understand that we need to make brave decisions around tax reform to raise revenue in this country. Governments play a number of critical roles in our society, and we do have some differences of philosophy in this place as to what the role of government should be. My party believes that one of the key roles is levying a fair and equitable tax system, a tax system that is progressive and that, as much as it possibly can, puts equity and equality right up there with efficiencies. Some of the money from that carbon price that was going to be collected from some of the dirtiest polluters on the planet—those who are creating the emissions and the gases that lead to global warming and the devastating effects that that is forecast to have in terms of its impact on a whole range of not just the economy but ecosystems around the planet—was going to be used to support a tax break for the poorest and most vulnerable in this country.

It is very disappointing to see the Labor Party, in 24 hours, turn their back not once but twice on low-income earners in this country. These are supposedly the bread-and-butter supporters of and voters for the Labor Party. Senator Carr talks about our support of the government's measures to bring in a more progressive system on pension payments to help low-income people get more money on the full pension. That is a progressive tax policy. When the Howard government changed it in 2007, the Greens took a very strong stance opposing that because it was not a progressive tax policy. We wanted to help low-income earners in this country, and it is exactly the same situation today. If we abolish this break for low-income earners, it is just going to put more pressure on the poor and vulnerable in our society who actually need the assistance the most. Giving them a leg up and helping them where we can not only takes pressure off other roles of government—the provision of emergency services and other services such as health care and education—but also helps our economy and also helps the circular flow of income. It helps the circular flow of income. So there are all sorts of secondary effects that are really important.

My party is proud to stand in here today and say that we oppose taking away tax breaks for the poorest Australians. Senator Carr said that these decisions are difficult when you are in opposition—if they were in government, they would not do it. I have heard the same thing said about supporting dangerous ISDS clauses—giving corporations the right to sue governments in free trade deals. That is a total cop-out. If you do not stand for something, Senator Carr, you will fall for anything. You need to make a strong statement in this chamber, to those people listening, that you support low-income earners in this country. My party does. We support a progressive tax system that levies money right across the economy from different categories of income, and that is what our society should be based on—the fair and equitable distribution of taxes and incentives.

How many times was this explained by our Prime Minister in the lead-up to the last election and how many times has it been explained by Senator Cormann? In the three short years I have been in the Senate I have heard him talk about axing the tax, getting rid of the job-destroying carbon tax and the mining tax. How many times has this government ever been honest and said that they were revenue raising measures and that revenue was necessary—necessary to balance budgets, necessary to provide a fair and equitable society. It is easy to come in here and cut spending, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. It is a lot more difficult to make brave decisions to support a progressive taxation system, to support a progressive pension system, to tax the bads, the pollutions. When I was at university I remember the rules being pretty simple in any economics textbook—a government should tax the bads, like pollution and health risks like sugar and tobacco; they should levy taxes so our common pool resources, like our mineral wealth, are equally shared amongst those who own them—the Australian voters, Australian taxpayers; and, just as importantly, where possible they should reduce taxes on work and effort.

My party has supported taking a tax off small business to allow them to get a leg up, but we want to see a progressive taxation system in this country. We want to see the bads taxed. We want to see a really simple, sensible, rational, logical price on carbon, and we want to see that money reallocated in the economy to where it is needed the most. If the government come in here and remove this tax break for low-income earners, I want them to explain why they were too gutless to do this when they removed the carbon price last year. I did not hear any of you in here telling low-income Australians that they were going to lose their tax break when you removed the carbon price. In fact, I remember you saying exactly the opposite—that they would get to keep their tax breaks. Now you are taking them away. These are the people who need a leg up, and I am deeply disappointed that the Labor Party are taking the weak decision of saying they would not do this if they were in government but they are going to have to do it in opposition. Low-income Australians want to see someone standing up for them in parliament. I think most Australians support a progressive taxation system, and the Greens will not be supporting this measure in the Senate.