Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s continued mismanagement of public finances and intention to compound cost of living pressures on families by introducing a new income tax levy.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government have a terrible track record when it comes to the management of our public finances. They are big spenders. As they are big spenders that is why they have to come up with one new tax hike after another. They have a track record of waste, mismanagement and incompetence, which is why they are unable to pursue genuine tax reform focused on simpler, fairer and lower taxes. Ad hoc tax grabs from an ad hoc incompetent government—that is what we have experienced under this Labor administration over the last three years.

We have been given all these reasons as to why one tax hike after another is justified. Whenever Labor see a problem they think the only solution to address the problem or challenge is yet another tax. It is important for us to remember that this Labor government’s mismanagement of our public finances started from the word go. It did not start with the global financial crisis, as the Labor government so very often want us to believe.

I remind the chamber and people across Australia that in their first budget Labor increased taxes by a staggering $20 billion and increased net spending by $15 billion. This is a government which inherited from the Howard-Costello government a very strong fiscal position. They inherited no government net debt. They inherited a government with $45 billion in the bank. They inherited a government with a $20 billion surplus.

But since then what have we experienced? We have experienced three successive deficits and, in fact, we have not had a single surplus budget from this government in a year where they have been fully responsible for our nation’s finances. The last surplus budget was the 2007-08 budget, which was the last budget that was crafted by the Howard-Costello government. Since then we have had a $27 billion deficit in 2008-09, a $54.8 billion deficit in 2009-10 and we are looking at an estimated $41.5 billion deficit this year. We are looking at $94.4 billion worth of net debt. Presumably, if the government have a chance to continue in government that will be only the start.

Compare and contrast this with our record in government. When we were in government we had surplus after surplus. We paid off debt and we implemented income tax cut after income tax cut. Labor fail on all of these grounds.

Labor would say, ‘Our circumstances are more difficult. We have been faced with a global financial crisis and now we are being faced with what are very tragic events in Queensland.’ The events in Queensland are tragic and all Australians should and will pull together to rebuild and to take Queensland and Australia forward again. Of course, that will happen, but we should also put it all into context.

These are tragic events but Australia has faced tragic events in the past. In fact, Australia has faced tragic events under the previous coalition government. Under the Howard government we had the Asian financial crisis, we had all of the events related to the war on terror, the Bali bombings, record droughts, the tsunami in Indonesia, avian flu, the ACT bushfires—an extraordinary tragedy that happened back in 2003—Cyclone Larry and various bushfires in Victoria and South Australia in 2005.

Madam Acting Deputy President, do you think that the response at that time was to whack on another tax? No, it was not. When you have a good government and a strong fiscal position, when you have a government that lives within its means and when you have a government that knows that it has got to balance the books and have a surplus, then you are able to handle the challenges you face as they come along.

The best insurance and the best way to inoculate yourself against the fall-out from these sorts of tragic events is to have a strong surplus. This is the great failure of this government. This government has mismanaged our nation’s finances to such an extent over the last three years that we are now in a position where they think the only way that they can keep some sort of semblance of fiscal responsibility is to whack on one tax after another.

Let us look at some of their track record. We had the response to the global financial crisis. The then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Wayne Swan clearly panicked. They looked at what was happening in the US and the UK. They noted there was fiscal stimulus happening over there: ‘Let’s go and spend like drunken sailors because that’s what they are doing in the US and the UK. So we should go down the fiscal stimulus path.’ Never mind that the circumstances in Australia were very different from the circumstances in the US and the UK.

In the US and the UK interest rates were close to zero. They were printing money and the governments over there thought there was still further stimulus required so off they went with fiscal stimulus. In Australia our interest rates bottomed out at three per cent. The Reserve Bank did a great job. They reduced interest rates very rapidly from 7.25 per cent down to three per cent. If further stimulus was required there was still scope for monetary policy to achieve it.

But what have we got now? We have a circumstance where the Reserve Bank and the government are going in opposite directions. We have had seven successive interest rate rises from the Reserve Bank at the same time as this government continue to shuffle money out of the door, so the government continue to stimulate the economy with taxpayers’ money and they continue to push the accelerator while the Reserve Bank is applying the brakes. So the Reserve Bank is putting up interest rates to reduce the supply of money in the market and this incompetent, wasteful government continues to put the money out the door.

It is quite rare to have fiscal policy and monetary policy going in opposite directions to the extent that we have experienced it in Australia over the last 18 months. This government would not know what a tax hike was if it fell over one. We have had more than $40 billion worth of tax hikes over the last three years. And what did the Prime Minister say on Meet the Press on Sunday? She said that over the last three years since 2007 ‘we have implemented more than $80 billion worth of savings’. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure that you would have been as surprised as I was to look at the fine detail and see more than half of the $80 billion worth of savings claimed by this dishonest Prime Minister were actually tax hikes. More than $40 billion of the things that this Prime Minister claims as savings are increased or new taxes. They include such pearlers as the increased alcopops tax, the tax that Labor gave us because they said it would reduce binge drinking and the tax that Labor said was going to reduce the consumption of alcopops. All the while, when Treasury were in the background assessing the revenue from that alcopops tax hike they were actually working on the assumption that consumption was going to go up—as it has since. This is the sort of dishonest tax-grabbing type of rhetoric that we get from this government: ‘Tell them that we want to reduce binge drinking while all the time we expect that binge drinking is actually going to go up.’

We have the tax on the North West Shelf and the luxury car tax, which was supposed to be on Maserati drivers and Porsche drivers—never mind that they were a direct tax hit on families with station wagons. We have the mining tax, the carbon tax and now we have another increase in the income tax hit on people across Australia. Why? To raise $1.8 billion to address the fallout from the tragic events up in North Queensland.

A government that has its finances in order and under control is able to deal with these challenges without having to whack on yet another ad hoc tax. It is time that this government took a strategic view of our tax system. It is time that this government delivered on its promise to have a tax summit by June. We were promised a tax summit by the end of June—that is four months away—to discuss openly, transparently and inclusively our tax system moving forward, a fairer, simpler tax system and lower taxes. Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, is running away from it. He does not want to have a tax summit. He does not want to be forced into a strategic look at taxation reform because he wants to continue with ad hoc tax grab after ad hoc tax grab to feed his addiction to spending, to help him cover up the mismanagement of the public finances after three years of Labor. It is high time that a good and strong government took over the Treasury benches so that the finances can be brought back under control. It is not enough for you to put John Fahey in charge of one of your programs to fix up your whole government. It is time that you put Tony Abbott in charge of the whole shop.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are moments when you know the opposition just want to play politics, when they oppose for opposition’s sake, as they have constantly been doing, or because they think they can make some political gain out of an issue. When they argue against a sensible proposal for a modest temporary levy that will contribute to the plan of the government to rebuild after the devastation that has hit Queensland, we know that this is one of those moments. I can tell you now that the people of Australia are much smarter than that. They will see—and have seen—right through the opportunism of Tony Abbott because they can see the cracks that are already appearing in the coalition ranks over this issue. Australia has just gone through one of the biggest natural disasters in its history, if not the biggest. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown strength and leadership and responded decisively to the crisis and those on the other side are just playing politics once again, even though it involves the loss of the worldly goods of people, their homes, their businesses, all their infrastructure and government infrastructure. The coalition do not care. They are just off having a good time playing politics and opposing for the sake of opposing.

The Australian government has already provided $400 million in disaster assistance. We estimate that the total cost of recovery and rebuilding will be in the order $5.6 billion. That consists of $5 billion for rebuilding essential infrastructure—the word there being essential—and $600 million in Australian government disaster recovery payments to be paid to nearly half a million Australians, including people in my home state of Tasmania who have been affected by floods on the east and north-west coasts. Also important to my home state, given the fact that a number of farmers have been affected by the floods, are payments under the disaster income recovery subsidy. This will provide $120 million in assistance to around 70,000 workers, small businesses and farmers who have lost income through the floods.

I just take this opportunity to thank the Tasmanian government for their hardship assistance through grants to help with temporary living expenses, the replacement of damaged and destroyed household items and the re-establishment of homes for people in Tasmania. The Australian government is also assisting employers in flood affected areas by fast-tracking employer sponsored temporary visas and doubling the number of places in the job seeker relocation pilot program. Two-thirds of the cost borne by the government will be met through budget savings and the remainder through a modest, temporary levy.

The coalition are linking this levy to cost-of-living pressures to try to make out that it is going to be some huge impost on Australian taxpayers. They know full well that 50 per cent of taxpayers will pay nothing, including people earning under $50,000 a year, and people who are paid or are eligible for an Australian government disaster relief payment will pay nothing. As for those who do pay the levy, a person on average full-time earnings—or $68,125 per year—will pay only an extra $1.74 per week. The same people have had their income tax bill cut by $20 per week by this government. Even those on $80,000 a year will pay about $2.80 per week, which is less than the cost of a cup of coffee. So this levy is modest, it is progressive, and surely it is a small price to pay to ensure that we rebuild our vital infrastructure destroyed by natural disasters.

If there is any better indication that those opposite are playing politics on this issue it is their record in government. Where does this sudden opposition to levies come from? After all, the Howard government introduced no more than six special levies during its time in power. As Senator Cormann said himself, if a government can manage its budgets it does not have to introduce these new levies. But it had no problem in introducing six special levies during its time in power. For those on the other side of the chamber with short memories, I will remind you what they were: the aircraft noise levy, introduced in the 1995-96 budget to fund amelioration of noise at airports; a 0.2 per cent increase in the Medicare levy to fund the firearms buyback scheme in 1996-97; the stevedoring levy in the 1998-99 budget applying to the loading and unloading of containers to ensure that employees made redundant under the Maritime Restructuring Facilitation Scheme received their full entitlements; the dairy industry adjustment levy to provide assistance to the industry to cope with deregulation; the Ansett levy imposed on air passenger tickets to fund a special entitlements scheme for former Ansett employees; and the sugar industry levy to fund industry assistance programs for the sugar industry.

In fact I think the memories of those opposite are especially short because it was only during the last federal election that the Leader of the Opposition proposed a levy to fund their maternity leave scheme. It was a scheme that they were happy to support, mind you, that would pay the wages of women on incomes of $150,000 a year in full. They were happy to support that but not happy to help out their fellow Australians in times of natural crises. I find it very funny how that was deemed worthy of a levy back in 2010, but now that we are in 2011 the coalition opposes a levy to help rebuild infrastructure following—from what we have heard today and as we all know—what is arguably Australia’s biggest natural disaster. The coalition obviously thought levies were okay in 1996 and 2001 and even as late as in 2010. But now that we are in 2011 the coalition has somehow decided that they are opposed to levies.

What is the coalition’s alternative? They are going to come up with a proposal for another $1.8 billion worth of savings, or so they say. But why would you trust them when it comes to budget management? They are the same group that, if they had formed government, would have left Australia with an $11 billion budget black hole. You would not put that lot in charge of the cash tin at the local bridge club let alone the federal Treasury. Let’s look at who is in charge of budget policy in the coalition: the opposition leader, Tony Abbott; the shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey; and the shadow finance minister, Andrew Robb. They are the same three stooges who blew out their 2010 election costings by $11 billion. I think the coalition could have got better advice from their family accountant than from Messrs Abbott, Hockey or Robb.

As a further demonstration of Mr Abbott’s ignorance of fiscal policy he suggested that scrapping the National Broadband Network would help pay for the cost of recovery and rebuilding. He had to back down and concede that one pretty quickly as his argument was flawed because he did not take into account the financial returns from the NBN investment. Mr Abbott’s next gaffe was to claim, on 28 January, that there is $8 billion available in various funds including the Building Australia Fund which is currently uncommitted. This was exposed as a con, and rightly so. But the absolute height of Mr Abbott’s gall was when he emailed Liberal Party supporters and called for donations to fight the flood tax. At a time when many Australians are digging deep to help those suffering from natural disasters Mr Abbott was thinking about what to do to fill the Liberal Party coffers. Where are his priorities?

The coalition have now said they will identify $1.8 billion worth of savings. Since that announcement they have spent a fortnight squabbling over what to cut. In their press conference yesterday Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey could not even agree on the numbers. Their ridiculous savings policy is already unravelling. For example, the Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, rejected all of the deferred infrastructure programs in Queensland as pork-barrelling, yet Tony Abbott supported the deferral of three of these projects. It is becoming increasingly obvious to all Australians that the biggest risk to our policy of achieving a budget surplus by 2012-13 would be in accepting any suggestions put forward by those fiscal dunces opposite.

The rhetoric of Mr Abbott and his coalition colleagues is highly hypocritical. If they want to point to a high-taxing, high-spending government then they should take a good look at themselves. This financial year our tax take is only 20.9 per cent of gross domestic product. In not one single financial year of the 11 years of the Howard government did the tax take drop below 22.1 per cent of GDP. The opposition should stop making petty political points and they should get on and support this levy because it is in the interests of the nation. If they continue to cling to their dodgy accounting it will only serve to demonstrate one thing. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to 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.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, your time has expired.

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

I seek leave to table a document which, I think, Senator Lundy has approved and indicated to her frontbench colleagues that they should agree to it.

Leave granted.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Queensland senator, I rise today in this debate to refute Senator Fifield’s motion about the Gillard government’s continued mismanagement of public finances and intention to compound cost-of-living pressures on families by introducing a new income tax levy. Firstly, this motion is misleading. The federal government is not compounding the cost-of-living pressures on families with an income tax levy. It surprises me that a senator from Victoria, Senator Fifield, who I am sure has seen and witnessed the terrible flood devastation in his state, has put this motion here today. I am sure he is well aware of the national disasters that have happened and are happening around our nation, which include bushfires over in your state, Acting Deputy President Pratt, and flooding and a huge cyclone up in the north of my state of Queensland. Thousands of people have been impacted by the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi. Many lost everything that they owned. Along with personal loss, there was also public loss. Roads, bridges and rail lines were destroyed. Vital infrastructure that is imperative for Queenslanders to make a living was destroyed. This is what the temporary flood levy will address. The temporary flood levy—

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

We didn’t have a levy for Larry.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will get to that in a minute, Senator Macdonald. The temporary flood levy, which will be only collected in the 2011-12 financial year, will go towards rebuilding Queensland infrastructure that was destroyed by the worst natural disaster we have seen in this country. The one-off levy will be payable by those who earn more than $50,000 per year at the rate of 0.5 cents. This equates to less than 50 cents a week for someone who earns $55,000 and less than $1 a week for those on $60,000. Those who earn more than $100,000 will pay one per cent. That is why the opposition opposes this levy: they are worried about their business mates; they are worried about those people who earn over $100,000. That is the only reason that they are standing up here today opposing this levy.

No extra work will be required by Australians for the collection of this levy. It will be paid in the same way as the Medicare levy. Australian residents who have claimed the Australian government disaster recovery payment will be exempt from paying the flood levy. This will give them the opportunity to rebuild their lives after these devastating natural disasters.

The opposition’s scurrilously claims that this levy will push up the cost of living for our families. This levy is 10 times less than the tax cuts Australians have received over the last three years. The Labor government is committed to providing tax cuts for our working Australians. In fact, the former Liberal government was the highest taxing government in our history. Our very own opposition leader, Mr Abbott, along with his Treasury spokesman, Joe Hockey, supported the implementation of the highest tax rate of 24.1 per cent in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Under the Gillard government, the tax rate will only be at 20.9 per cent. Since taking office, we have delivered personal income tax cuts in each of our three budgets. Our tax reforms have cut company tax, cut small business tax, reduced tax on superannuation, reduced tax on other savings and reduced tax for taxpayers through a standard deduction. Conversely, the opposition has been sceptical of the flood levy since day one. This flood levy is needed to get my state of Queensland back on its feet. This is no surprise, as Tony Abbott has been programmed to automatically oppose anything that the Labor government suggests.

I am pleased that Senator Macdonald raised those issues up in North Queensland. Being a Queenslander and having travelled, worked and holidayed in those regions, I understand the impact on regional and northern Queensland. But he fails to understand the overall coverage of this particular disaster. It was a disaster the size of the United Kingdom. None of the cyclones that Senator Macdonald raised in his speech were even close to that size.

The government levy will be used to rebuild infrastructure vital to people earning a living. Without roads, bridges and railway lines, Australians are unable to continue their employment and businesses are unable to function. With no access to their places of employment, those supporting families will find it tough to sustain their day-to-day lives. Without an income, families will struggle to put food on the table. This is what the opposition is supporting by opposing this needed levy. Without this flood levy, our roads, bridges and railways cannot be rebuilt. If you went back and reflected on those media images on the TV just last week after Cyclone Yasi hit North Queensland, you would understand and appreciate the volume of the impact on railways and roads. The bitumen on roads was shifted off the strips that are relied upon for transport. And this opposition opposes rebuilding infrastructure in the north of Queensland and other parts of the state.

The opposition is determined to deny flood and cyclone affected Queenslanders this assistance, even though it has been found that the public support this levy. Senator Macdonald mentioned a survey that the Australian released just last week, the latest Newspoll. It showed that 55 per cent support this levy to help rebuild flood affected areas. If you rely on some of your surveys, naturally you would come up with a different figure, because that suits your purpose. But this is what Australians do. The community spirit that I experienced during the Brisbane flood was amazing. People who were not affected by the floods got out their gumboots, their brooms and their hats and set out to assist people who they had never met. Donations to the Premier’s diaster relief appeal were extraordinary, with everyday Australians digging deep to support fellow Australians left devastated after the floods. As of yesterday, $205 million has been raised by this appeal. And people are still committed to raising money for this appeal, because the money is going to people who need it. This levy is to support the rebuilding of infrastructure in the state of Queensland. The support of the public for this levy shows exactly what the community spirit is like in this country. I believe that the majority of Australians will be willing to give up a cup of coffee a week to help rebuild our flood affected areas.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or less!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or less. I take that interjection, Senator Bilyk. Tony Abbott had no problems in his election promises with implementing a levy on big business to fund paid parental leave last year, but he is not prepared to support a levy on Australians who earn more than $50,000 to help rebuild our flood affected areas. In fact, he commented in the Herald Sun on 13 March last year—note the contradiction:

The difference between a levy and a tax is that a levy is for a specific purpose and this is for a specific purpose.

This is exactly what our proposal for a levy is all about. His hypocrisy is so stark in this debate. This week Tony Abbott announced his alternative to the flood levy—in fact, you would describe it as his own personal view, with his own opposition cabinet members disagreeing on one of his proposals: to cut foreign aid to Africa.

Despite the flood and cyclone crisis Treasurer Wayne Swan has confirmed that the budget is still on track and is to be in surplus by 2012-13. It is through the federal government’s financial discipline and great economic management during the global financial crisis that we will put the budget back in the black. In the Treasurer’s economic note of 23 January Mr Swan revealed the labour force figures showing that the unemployment rate fell from 5.2 per cent to five per cent in December. In fact, 2010 was a record, with 364,000 jobs created—and 80 per cent of those were filled by full-time positions.

Third parties, including the Business Council of Australia, have also praised our economic management. The BCA stated in its budget submission in 2009-10:

The BCA considers that the government has so far responded well to the downturn in the economy and to the issues related to the global financial crisis. The BCA welcomes recent policy decisions by the government that have redirected spending towards building capacity and longterm growth.

So this government, the Labor government, will act swiftly and appropriately with this particular levy and this particular natural disaster.

In closing, the opposition had another blow recently. The opposition leader came out recently, at a time when Queenslanders are recovering from the greatest natural disaster this country has ever faced, trying to deal with their flood-inundated homes, protecting themselves from the greatest cyclone Queensland has ever faced, and commenced his mudslinging routine. He should hang his head in shame, do the honourable thing and resign. I am sure that those opposite will make sure that happens as soon as possible.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the rather laborious contribution from Senator Furner, I was taken back to 1967, when Shirley Bassey sang that immortal number, ‘Hey big spender’, because it seems to have crept back into the Labor government’s vocabulary. The only thing they have contributed to this debate has been trying to mount a justification for taking more money out of the pockets of families. We have to ask about the integrity of their arguments. Senator Bilyk said that this government was a much lower-taxing government than those that went before it, and she quoted a percentage of GDP. What seems to have escaped Senator Bilyk and her colleagues is that they have spent $150 billion more than they have taken in tax, which has mortgaged the futures of our children. It has placed an impediment upon every Australian family. They are going to have to repay the debt that has been established by this government.

The proposition we are debating today is very simple. It is that the mismanagement of the Gillard government of public finances will compound the cost-of-living pressures on families. It is a very simple proposition. It is very simple because the Australian people know about the cost-of-living pressures on families. It is a bit harder to understand it if you do not have a family of your own, because you are not there trying to put food on the table for your children. You are not there trying to pay for child care or living on one income. You cannot understand it until you have to live it. The fact that this government are defending their squandering of public money and saying that imposing a new tax on Australian families is not going to make it harder for them beggars belief. How can a government be so uncaring?

The government dress up their spendthrift manner, and their demands on the taxpayers’ purse, by talking about the disasters that have befallen Queensland, and they try to play an emotive card. It is very serious what has happened in Queensland. It is going to cost billions to repair it. But they are billions that we would have had they not been wasted through foolish programs, mismanagement and economic incompetence. If you need any further proof, I could give you four words: ‘pink batts’ and ‘school halls’. They have now entered the Australian vernacular as synonyms for waste and stupidity. That is what they mean. Every time you mention pink batts and school halls, people know that that was waste and stupidity at work. And yet those on the other side of the chamber have not been prepared to say this is a problem. They walk around, Mr Swan and the others, in their Mr Magoo like world that rules their fiscal calculations, talking about inflation being at 2.7 per cent. The reality is that the cost-of-living rises for families are much higher than that. Already, economists at Westpac have said that fruit and vegetable prices could rise by up to 60 per cent in the months ahead. We are seeing fuel prices much higher than they have been. We are seeing electricity prices in my state of South Australia up 12 per cent. And, due to the mismanagement in New South Wales, they are going to go up 50 per cent.

All of these things are going to hurt families, and yet the Gillard government says, ‘I don’t want to know about it; we want people to reach into their pockets and pluck out another one per cent.’ That money, the $6 billion or $8 billion or whatever it costs, should have been available through the government budgetary office already. The reason for that is simple: this government were left with a $20 billion surplus. They sent it out to people in $900 cheques. They then went into the pink batts and school halls. They then put up taxes—which, of course, were not going to affect working families; but they were taxes on cigarettes, on ready-to-drink alcohol, on family cars. We forget about that. There were increased taxes, or lower rebates, for private health insurance. This government, and those opposite, have never met a tax they did not like. They can justify it in any number of ways, but every time they do they drive another stake through the heart of Australian families. They are already doing it tough, and you want to make it tougher for them, all because you are not prepared to admit you have got it wrong, you have bungled our national finances.

I come back to my opening remarks. This is going to force Australian families for at least a generation to labour under the yoke of your mismanagement. It is incredible how much damage can be done in only three years of government. It is much more damage than was caused by the biggest floods we have seen in 30 years in Queensland, much more damage than was caused by a massive cyclone in Queensland and much more damage than was caused by bushfires in Victoria or in Western Australia. The human cost of the tragedy that you are imposing on this country should have you hanging your heads in shame. It is an absolute disaster and all because you cannot—your party, your government—manage money.

This is a very simple premise: the Australian people expect governments to step in and help them through times of crisis. They do not expect the government to create a crisis in only three short but very painful years that is going to cost not only this generation but successive generations and make them pay. After squandering a massive surplus and accruing a record debt, which it conveniently seems to have forgotten, this Labor government is intent on imposing additional taxes. It does not want to impose just a flood levy—let us get past that for a moment—but additional taxes such as a carbon tax which it swore it would never impose; a carbon tax which Ms Gillard swore, hand on heart, ‘I will not impose’, but now she is going to impose; a carbon tax that is unnecessary, except for the fact that the government wants to take more control of people’s lives and take more money out of their pockets. It is going to put up the price of everything for families, and there is nothing the government can say to refute that because it knows it is true. But that is not all, that is not enough. It does not want to just impose a carbon tax; it also wants to impose a mining tax to make mining companies less profitable so that, possibly, there will be less exploration, less investment and less development of mines in this country, which will mean less employment. And if there are fewer people working, you know that that is going to have an impact on families.

For this government, mining is just a golden goose that can continue to be plucked. The government want to pluck the people that work in that industry as well, many of whom earn over $100,000 and would not consider themselves wealthy. Yet Senator Furner said that those who are earning over $100,000 a year are the fat cats and the business magnates—I am paraphrasing here. The simple fact is that the government have targeted people who want to work. Because of their incompetence, the government want to take more out of their pockets. They do not have a plan to balance the budget. I was told before that wagering in the chamber is un-Senate like, but I would lay London to a brick that this government will not ever deliver a surplus, and certainly not by 2013, unless they continue to tax and impose levy after levy.

I do not want to see the burden go up for Australian taxpayers and their families. I do not want to see them have increased pressure on their family budgets. Might I remind senators that families have to live within their means. They do not have a bottomless pit of credit and they do not have access to a compliant legislature. They have to live within their means and if they spend too much money in one area they have to go without in another. That is what every family in this country does, yet the people that we should trust the most to balance the budget and to ensure that people live within their means, the Australian government, cannot seem to do so.

What is it about having $300 billion a year to spend that causes people to spend $400 billion or $500 billion? What is it that causes people, when they come up to this place as part of the ALP, to close their eyes to the impact on working families? They talk, they issue rhetoric and they make promises, but when they get up here they suddenly forget what it is like—what it is like to go to the shop and have to spend twice as much money to buy some bananas or what it is like to put fruit and vegetables on the table. A 60 per cent price increase is expected in the months ahead. What does this government respond with? They respond by saying, ‘We are going to take more money out of your pocket and make it harder for you, every Australian family that is going to be hit by this levy, to pay your bills.’ It is not over yet. We are opposed to this because it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because this is the most wasteful government in the history of this country.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this matter of public importance and certainly I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by Senator Cormann, Senator Macdonald and Senator Bernardi. Senator Macdonald argued that it was a normal function of government to deal with national disasters. He argued that there should be no levy because there was no levy when Darwin was hit. He argued that it was the natural service of government to deal with these disasters. But Senator Cormann then really undermined the whole argument from the coalition when he said that a government that has their finances under control does not need a tax or a levy.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There he goes, the apologist for West Australian big business is in there again, intervening in the debate. I think the public are not interested in the position that you are adopting. The public want Queensland rebuilt, they want northern New South Wales rebuilt, they want Victoria rebuilt—they want recovery from these disasters—and they want Western Australia rebuilt from the fires that are in that state. As Senator Cormann has said, a government that has its finances under control does not need a levy. Let me have a look at some of the levies that the Howard government put on.

The stevedoring levy: obviously no finances were under control by the Howard government when the stevedoring levy went on in 1998. The dairy levy: obviously you did not have your finances under control when you implemented the dairy levy in 2001. You had a surplus of $3.9 billion in 1998-99 when you put a levy on. You had a surplus in 2001 when you put a levy on. No wonder, Senator Cormann, you are walking out of the Senate, because you cannot accept that the reality of what you have just said exposes the nonsense that you have been putting forward in relation to your arguments. You put on an airport levy at a time when there was a surplus of $5.9 billion. You put on a sugar levy when there was a surplus of $7.4 billion. Peter Costello was lying back in his hammock, rocking away watching the money flooding in and John Howard was thrown out every budget on bribes to the public—that is the nature of the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Howard government.

Senator Cormann leaves the chamber because he just does not want to hear the reality of what the Howard government did. They had a superannuation surcharge levy, a gun buyback levy, a stevedoring levy, a milk levy, a sugar levy, an Ansett Airlines levy. They were proposing an East Timor levy. They were proposing a cleaner fuels levy. Yet they have got the gall to come in here and argue with us when we are proposing a one-off 12-month levy to rebuild this country after one of the biggest natural disasters we have ever seen. What a performance it has been from Senators Macdonald, Cormann and Bernardi. What a performance! Senator Macdonald in his usual petty, narrow minded, bitter way was trying to turn a natural disaster into an attack on a government that is determined to rebuild Queensland.

Senator Cormann, as I have said, is the Senate apologist for big business, the Senate apologist for big mining and the Senate apologist for big health. He was in here saying that we should not put a levy on—a modest levy to rebuild this country, to rebuild Queensland, northern New South Wales and Victoria. You see, Senator Cormann has been clear in his position. As long as Western Australia is doing all right, it does not matter about anywhere else. He is simply focused on Western Australia and on sucking up to the big mining lobby in Western Australia so that the Liberal Party of Western Australia can still maintain the money coming in so that it can maintain control within the Liberal Party of Australia. That is what Senator Cormann is about. Let’s not make any bones about what he is about. He is about big business and he is about the Liberal Party—the same as the Leader of the Opposition.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cameron is impugning improper motive and I ask you to call him to order. I think his contribution right now is well out of order.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, we have just witnessed a number of speeches from coalition senators which have impugned the Labor Party and its economic response to the floods. I think Senator Cormann should be a bit more resilient than to complain about something in a robust debate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I will listen closely to the debate further.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, you clearly were not listening to the debate that was going on. Senator Cameron made the imputation that somehow the policy position I took in relation to the mining tax was driven by procuring a benefit for the Liberal Party in Western Australia. That is impugning—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Cormann, you do not have the call. I made a statement as to how I would proceed. Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always find Senator Cormann really interesting—full of bluff, full of bluster and, when it really comes down to it, not much ticker, not much ticker at all. Screaming for the help of the chair in a debate like this—what a sook. It is just awful. You really have to get a bit of gumption, you really have to get a bit of guts and you really have to get a bit of backbone, Senator Cormann. It is all right when you are running around muscling up on your fellow Western Australian Liberals, but you will not get away with it with me, let me tell you. You will not get away with it.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask that you direct Senator Cameron to direct his comments through the chair.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Cameron, I call you to order. Please direct your comments through the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann is a big sook. He is so weak, so full of bluster and bluff, yet when it comes down to it he has to get the chair to help him in a debate in this Senate. What a pathetic performance. When the public have listened to those three Liberal senators, they will wonder what they are on about. The reality is that the priority for any government—it should be for any opposition—is to get the recovery of this nation underway. Yet what we see the Liberal Party doing is looking at this recovery on the basis of saying, ‘Well, we can actually get some benefit out of this. Let’s put a release out and say, “Give us some money to oppose the levy.”’ When everyone else in the country is putting money in to support Queensland, northern New South Wales, Victoria and now Western Australia, what does the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition is out there saying, ‘Don’t worry about the levy; don’t worry about putting money in to support the people of Australia that are in trouble—just think about giving more money to the Liberal Party.’

Talk about impugning your motives! I think you have demonstrated quite clearly what your motives are. You are a pathetic rabble. What is happening at the moment is that Tony Abbott’s pasting-over of the differences between the Liberal Party and the National Party is coming apart. We all know that the Liberal Party detests the National Party. We know that the National Party detests the Liberal Party. And we know that those in the Liberal Party detest each other. That is what is driving the response to what should be the most important matter facing any political party in this country, and that is getting the recovery of this nation underway. That is the important thing—the recovery of this nation.

What has been clearly demonstrated by the contributions from the three previous senators is that all they want to do is try to score narrow, meaningless political points when our government is setting about in a decisive manner to repair the damage to this nation and to look after Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria. That is what we will do. We will not be diverted by your petty political points. We will get on with building this nation. We are a government that are always turned to when there is a problem. We handled the financial crisis; we will handle this crisis.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has expired.