Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. These bills are important to Queenslanders, but not only to Queenslanders. They are important across all the regions of Australia to which I have travelled recently, all those regions affected by the extraordinary circumstances that have descended upon us—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the top end of South Australia and across to the Gascoyne in Western Australia.

In contradistinction to that, the recent political tactics from the opposition on this bill are all too familiar—that is, to oppose, to block and to stop anything the government decides to do that is clearly in the national interest. Rebuilding Queensland is in the national interest, keeping the economy strong is in the national interest and paying as we go while doing the rebuilding is in the national interest. It is easier for Mr Abbott to try and scare Australians than to try and lead. It is easier to exaggerate an issue than use reason and common sense in the debate.

What we are seeing in the Senate in this debate is yet another example of how this opposition leader’s negativity, his complete hollowness as a politician, is permeating through his own parliamentary rabble. It must be difficult for some in the opposition to drag themselves in here each morning knowing that they have nothing constructive or forward thinking to say on this bill or on many of the other matters that are brought here. There is a lot of hyperbole and misrepresentation in this place from those opposite. There has also been, quite frankly, a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the reconstruction effort required and a lack of goodwill towards the people of Queensland and those other parts of Australia where that reconstruction is needed.

We have heard from those opposite about tax grabs and a tax on volunteers. We have heard those opposite attack the member for O’Connor, Mr Crook, for supporting the government’s position. We have heard much from those opposite about the impacts these disasters have had on communities right across Australia and their very significant impacts on Queensland. We have not heard from them how we have to get on with the job of rebuilding disaster affected communities, how we have to rebuild our roads and bridges, and how we need to support our businesses and farmers.

I think it might be appropriate to remind the Senate why this bill is so important. I will focus briefly on my home state of Queensland as an example. The estimated impact of the Queensland floods on Australia has been put at $30 billion not including Yasi. Three-quarters of Queensland has been declared a disaster area. Sixty-seven local government areas have been designated for disaster assistance under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. These areas cover a population of over four million people.

This government is supporting the rebuilding of Queensland, and it is tough work. It involves tough decisions and the government will see the job through. Yesterday was the last day of summer, a summer many of us are glad to see the back of. It has been a dreadful season of natural disasters. I support this levy because I have seen first-hand the devastation of these disaster events and understand the scale of the work that is required. What is clear is that the Commonwealth government must play a leading role in the reconstruction of Queensland and must do so in an economically responsible way.

I have seen floods across the east coast through Toowoomba, floods through Brisbane and a cyclone that ripped across our north. Emerald is a town that I have seen in many states—in the peak of the drought and more recently at the height of the floods. Visiting Emerald on 4 January and again less than 10 days later, I noted the impact of the floods was, in a word, unbelievable. The swiftness of the waters and the impact they had on the countryside, on the railways and on the retail area of Emerald were devastating. The Rocklea markets in Brisbane under water was one of the more frequent images on our television screens during the flooding throughout the Brisbane CBD and surrounding suburbs. At that site entire forklifts were thrown across the markets as the floods ravaged Rocklea and moved through all that area. A challenge that confronted the markets was simply finding and identifying the hardware that was strewn across the side. I was particularly pleased to be able to see the Rocklea markets back in operation a few days later. The spirit was still there to get the markets up and running as soon as possible. When I visited they had just completed their first day of limited trading and many distributors were still cleaning and hosing out sheds, recovering lost property and preparing access routes for the morning’s trucks.

In Dalby I met with the Mayor of the Western Downs Regional Council, Ray Brown, who talked to me about the issues that were confronting his community and the challenges ahead for flood recovery and reconstruction in that region. I had an opportunity to talk to many other mayors, and I will not name them all, across Gatton, Helidon and Grantham and to speak to local residents as well as community groups and organisations in those areas. Amongst the tears that people had, amongst the disappointment that they had having lost loved ones, amongst the disappointment and sadness of their having lost possessions and had houses flooded—or destroyed by Cyclone Yasi—the resilience of the community shone through. In Ipswich I witnessed reactions and emotions familiar to those of many other parts of Queensland as people were slowly, carefully, cleaning up, starting the rebuilding effort, commencing the work that would see them try to bring their life back to some sense of order. I was pleased also to spend Australia Day with communities in and around Toowoomba, including the people of Oakey, Chinchilla and Miles, as they celebrated what they had: their friendship and bond of comradeship in regional and rural communities—each other, in fact. As if this summer of floods was not enough, which I have mentioned, the impact of Cyclone Yasi left a tremendous mark on Far North Queensland. Having visited that region, I saw the devastation across Cardwell, Tully and Innisfail—hit hard by cyclones twice in five years. In these towns people were displaced, main streets impacted and agricultural sheds and crops destroyed. These people, as well as most of my state, require a recovery effort, a rebuilding effort, that is on a scale that we have not seen before in this country.

I detail these visits across Queensland because, as I met with regional councils impacted by floods and cyclones and facing the challenge of their recovery, the government was assessing the role that it could play and the way in which it could support the communities and towns across Queensland. The Gillard government has been clear that its role is to support communities, get them back on their feet and back into work and so recover from the natural disasters. It has involved tough decisions and these were taken by the Prime Minister to tackle head on the challenges of supporting the reconstruction effort. The government has made clear that the responsible course of action is for the government to be directly involved in supporting the rebuilding of Queensland. The scale of this disaster means we have taken difficult decisions to find the necessary funds to rebuild the roads, bridges, ports and community infrastructure that have been damaged by the floods. As part of the $5.6 billion recovery package announced by the Prime Minister, the government will institute a modest one-off levy. For every dollar raised by the levy to fund reconstruction efforts, the Commonwealth will raise $2 through spending cuts.

I turn the attention of the Senate to the nature of this levy and put this policy in context, given what I can only describe as a wall of hysteria that I heard from the coalition opposition yesterday. As I have said, the levy is temporary and modest. Only 46 per cent of taxpayers will pay the levy and 60 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 a week. Further, low-income earners and individuals who have received the Australian government disaster recovery payment will be exempt from the levy. As a progressive levy, it is based on the ability of an individual to pay. Anyone earning under $50,000 will not pay the levy, people earning between $50,000 and $100,000 will pay 0.5 per cent of taxable income in excess of $50,000, people earning over $100,000 will pay 0.5 per cent of taxable income in excess of $50,000 and one per cent of taxable income in excess of $100,000.

The levy will go towards supporting the Queensland Reconstruction Authority to rebuild vital bridges, roads, ports and railways. It is a good and appropriate means of raising the necessary funds to rebuild Queensland. The government has found $2 of savings for every $1 raised by the levy. These were tough cuts to respond to an unprecedented natural disaster. The Commonwealth has identified $2.8 billion in spending cuts to help pay for the flood recovery measure. These will be through abolishing, deferring and capping access to a number of carbon abatement programs. Also, funding under the Building Better Regional Cities and Priority Infrastructure programs will be redirected to flood rebuilding. In order to both manage the capacity of the economy and help the immediate rebuilding efforts, the government will defer some infrastructure projects, saving $1.8 billion.

I also take the opportunity to assist the Senate with what has already been rolled out into these communities or activated by the Commonwealth and jointly with the state government. In response to the natural disasters, the Commonwealth was quick to roll out emergency financial assistance measures to assist in recovery efforts. These included, as I mentioned earlier, the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster income subsidy. As at 24 February, approximately 649,531 AGDRP payments had been made across Australia, totalling $754 million. Of these, 376,172 payments worth $442 million related to the Queensland floods. As of 24 February, approximately 56,862 DIRS—which is the income subsidy—had been paid across Australia, totalling $25.3 million. Of these, 50,408 payments worth about $22 million relate to the Queensland floods. A range of cost shared NDRRA relief and recovery systems measures continue to be made available through the Queensland government, including matters such as personal hardship and distress relief assistance such as emergency food, accommodation, clothing and replacement of essential household items; psychological and financial counselling; public infrastructure restoration; concessional loans to small businesses, primary producers, voluntary not-for-profit bodies and needy individuals; and grants of up to $25,000 for small businesses and primary producers.

Further, for the impact of tropical Cyclone Yasi the government has announced a support package and wage subsidy. The government has worked with the Queensland government and the local community on a package that recognises the special characteristics of the region hit by the cyclone. The package, which is in addition to the standard NDRRA assistance, was announced on 16 February and extended on 25 February. It includes measures such as concessional interest rate loans and grants of up to $650,000 with a capped up to $50,000 non-repayable grant for eligible businesses, primary producers and voluntary not-for-profit bodies; a rural resilience fund; and a package of up to $20 million jointly funded by the Australian and the Queensland governments to provide support for a range of community and social support measures for community businesses and primary producers. A wage subsidy has also been made available through the Australian government to employers whose businesses have been directly affected by tropical Cyclone Yasi and who are unable to pay full wages to employees during the recovery phase. Wage assistance will be paid to employers for eligible employees for 13 weeks in total.

A package targeted at supporting local councils impacted by Queensland’s floods has also been announced by the Commonwealth and state governments. The Queensland local council package is a $315 million package to help Queensland local councils repair utilities and infrastructure and support their efforts in recovering from both the floods and Cyclone Yasi. There is $265 million to the Queensland Reconstruction Authority to fast-track the repair of damaged infrastructure across Queensland. This is to repair severely damaged water and sewerage infrastructure owned by local government. It will be prioritised and will also provide up to $145 million to fast-track reconstruction of the Brisbane ferry terminals and the Brisbane River wharf. An upfront payment of $50 million will be made available to help regional and remote councils employ people to perform important clean-up and repair work, with the option to provide further funding for employment if required. Commonwealth funding for the package is $206 million and the contribution from the Queensland government will be $109 million.

Madam Acting Deputy President, what I have outlined to you and the Senate is the scale of not only the beginning of the devastation, the resilience of the community and their ability to engage and start the recovery effort but also their need for government assistance to ensure that recovery continues and that we do see the end where people can have a community—I guess in some respects it will never be the same—restored to a position where they can enjoy the amenities of their local cities and country towns. Of course, the scale of the destruction only really serves to put in context the scale of the reconstruction and recovery effort that now stands before Queensland.

I have made clear in this contribution that the levy is both modest and temporary. It is targeted and scaled to impact those who can pay. I have also taken the opportunity of explaining that the work and support the Commonwealth and state government have made available is flowing across the state already. It is much needed. This levy supports the rebuilding of Queensland infrastructure to get the communities and the state up and running again. This levy, as the Prime Minister has said, is about the Commonwealth standing together with Queensland and supporting it in its task ahead. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Ludwig was speaking as a senator for Queensland rather than as the minister closing the debate, the debate continues with Senator Ronaldson.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to place on the public record my condolences to those who lost family and to those who had family who were injured and express my sympathy for the enormous amount of property damage that was done. In so doing, I of course speak for those in my own home state of Victoria who are also still suffering from the impact of the devastating floods. I think many of us will remember well January this year and everything that flowed from it.

I take issue with my friend and colleague Senator Ludwig. He said that government assistance was required. Yes, I agree with that aspect of his contribution to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and related bill. I vehemently disagree with him that it has to be done by way of a tax. In the last 48 hours we have seen a relationship between the Prime Minister and Senator Bob Brown, which is now to be known as the Gillard-Brown government. Indeed, it is a partnership which has been conceived on earth but which will be delivering from hell. I cannot imagine a more dangerous group to be running this country than Ms Gillard and, effectively, her de facto, fellow Prime Minister Bob Brown—a very dangerous outcome.

I want to talk about the ramifications of this levy and, indeed, the ramifications of the government’s carbon tax, which was announced a couple of days ago. But, firstly, I want to refer to those who have actually been concerned about the government’s levy. I note with some interest that on 29 January, under the headline ‘ALP’s flood tax revolt’, the Daily Telegraph said, ‘Furious, unnamed Labor MPs could not wait to tell the national correspondent Steve Lewis that they were opposed to this.’ One of them even said it was one of the ‘dumbest decisions’ made by the Prime Minister—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s saying something!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed—and a decision that left senior Labor figures shaking their heads at the lack of cabinet consultation. Of course, there was no cabinet consultation in relation to this matter. We now know full well that there was no cabinet consultation in relation to the carbon tax. So Labor got rid of one Prime Minister because he refused to engage cabinet or the backbench and they have now replaced Kevin Rudd with another Prime Minister, who also refuses to consult. So what was it all about? The micromanager Kevin Rudd has been replaced by the micromanager Julia Gillard. I suppose the big difference between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard is that he did not form this unholy alliance with Senator Bob Brown and the other Greens. That is the big difference between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Even Kristina Keneally, the Premier of New South Wales—for about another three weeks!—expressed concern about the impact of this tax. Can we please, during the rest of this debate and during the summing-up, refer to this as a flood tax? The use of this word ‘levy’ is totally inappropriate; it is a flood tax.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, having sat there quietly for a couple of minutes, they have arced up across the other side because they know, I know, we know and everyone listening to this knows that this is not a levy, it is a tax.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And do you know, Senator Polley, it is a tax that you can run from but most certainly cannot hide from. Those opposite have imposed another tax on the Australian people and they did not spend one nanosecond looking at other options. Senator Ludwig, as I said, was right: everyone in Queensland, Victoria and elsewhere who suffered from these floods needs government assistance. What they do not need is another tax. The interesting part about this, in my view, is that I think the Australian Labor Party—not you, Madam Acting Deputy President—in one fell swoop has sent a very dangerous message to the Australian people. There is anecdotal evidence, which I believe is correct from feedback that I have had, of the damage done by going to the Australian people and pleading for them to support the flood victims—which they did and which they have always been happy to do, as they did in Victoria two years ago—and then imposing a tax on top of that. You have destroyed the giving nature in this country. This will be the legacy: you will have single-handedly, potentially destroyed the giving culture in this country and you will pay an enormous penalty for that stupidity.

The coalition’s response to this matter was the appropriate response. On the back of the need for the Australian community and the Australian taxpayer to support the people of Queensland and elsewhere with financial assistance, we actually went down an entirely different path to that of the Australian Labor Party. We looked at where there may be savings to be made, where there may be government waste that could be set aside and put towards the flood victims. The Australian Labor Party just lives on taxes. If it is a problem, you tax it. We have said, quite clearly, that there are other options in relation to finding the money, the government assistance, that should be provided.

I will go very quickly through the list again. We would partially defer water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin and delay funding under the so-called Building the Education Revolution program. We have seen more money wasted on this program than I think we have ever seen in this country’s history. You will waste that amount of money on the Green Loans and the Home Insulation programs but you will not give $5 million to our national icon down the road—the Australian War Memorial. I ask: what are your priorities? We would redirect the remaining funds from the Building Better Regional Cities program. We would reduce spending on the Automotive Transformation Scheme. There would be further cuts in funding to the GP Super Clinics Program—another farce. We would defer funding from the Australia Indonesia Education Partnership and discontinue funding to the National Solar Schools program and others. We sat down and looked at where the savings might be, because we acknowledge that the communities who suffered from the floods deserve this country and the government to put in for their reconstruction—but not by way of a tax.

When you look around this country, you will see whether there is fire or flood that the one thing that brings people together—the people in my state of Victoria, the people in New South Wales, Queensland and throughout the country, particularly country people—is their ability to respond quickly to changed circumstances, and especially when those changed circumstances relate to their neighbour or the person living down the road from them. What Australians are very quick to do in these times of trouble is to change their priorities. They will change their priorities in a nanosecond, and those priorities will be changed to ensure that they provide assistance to their neighbour in the widest possible sense. It begs the question: if people in that situation can change their priorities quickly, why is it impossible for the Gillard-Brown government to change its priorities? Why didn’t they do what that magnificent army of volunteers around this country did when they changed their priorities overnight to address the situation they were confronted with and respond accordingly? When you look at those who have been involved in these events, such as the SES, the farmers, the people in the towns and the cities—the sand baggers; those who dropped everything to help—you see that they changed their priorities and went to help their neighbour. The Australian community is quite capable of changing its priorities. It is extraordinary to me that this government is unable to do likewise.

I want to talk about the latest product of the Gillard-Brown government—the big new tax that is going to be delivered. My fear is that, when push comes to shove downstairs, the Independents will be so scared of taking on this government that they will roll over again. And when legislation comes back up here, the other part of the Gillard government will ensure that this country has a carbon tax.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The torture of Hamlet: will I or won’t I?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. I want to repeat the words, because the words have been repeated ad nauseam and the words will be repeated again after this. I just want to read them out. On 16 August last year, on Channel 10, Ms Gillard said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection from the minister because I am absolutely gobsmacked at the stupidity of the Labor Party to talk about the GST. What political party took this tax to an election? The coalition government took the GST to an election. You bald-faced lied before the election about a carbon tax. You have not taken it to the people, and you refuse to do so. I refer to the words of Andrew Bolt, who said recently—

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

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now, Andrew Bolt, if I remember correctly, actually used to work for a Labor minister. Is my recollection correct? I think he might have.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Andrew Bolt—the man whom you now choose to abuse—might have just worked for the Australian Labor Party. But I might be wrong about that. Correct me if I am, please. No-one is jumping to their feet. Andrew Bolt said:

The public has been deceived, and an election stolen with a false promise.

The Australian people, as Senator Williams said, know this absolutely. I now turn to the front page of the Australianoh, no noise. Normally those on the other side arc up when the Australian’s name is mentioned—of course, unless there is a favourable article and then it is one of their favourite newspapers. On the front page there is again a quotation from the Prime Minister herself—the one person in this country that the Australian people should be able to take the word of. If she says something, the Australian people should be entitled to rely on that. Again I will quote:

I rule out a carbon tax.

Then, on 15 August, the Treasurer —

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

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you might say ‘It’s all right.’ I like you, Senator Bilyk, otherwise I would pursue this a bit harder, but I am not going to. On Meet the press on 15 August the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said:

... what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax ...

‘Hysterical allegation’ is right. On 12 August, on the 7.30 report, Mr Swan said:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

As soon as the election is over, the deceit starts. I suspect that Ms Gillard and her now comrade-in arms, Senator Brown, had actually had these discussions before the election. I rather suspect—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Call me cynical, Senator Williams—but I would not be surprised if indeed this formed part of the agreement in relation to the allocation of preferences. I reckon this was an absolute done deal two months before the election. But the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country went to the people and told a bald-faced untruth.

Those quotes will come back to haunt the Australian Labor Party, and they will come back to haunt this government and the Prime Minister. I know, and we on this side know, that there are plenty on the other side of the chamber who are absolutely appalled and embarrassed that there will now be a carbon tax. There are some sensible people on the other side. I am the first to admit that there are some sensible people on the other side but this—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can’t even say it without laughing.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. You are absolutely right. I do not think there are very many. You have caught me out, Senator Polley.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, I know. I am sorry, and I regret saying it now. I want to go through the ramifications of this new tax. The ramifications of this new tax on Australian families are quite dramatic, and I defy anyone in this chamber to stand up and say that Australian families are not under cost-of-living pressure. Everyone in this country knows that Australian families are under cost-of-living pressure. It is tough out there for families and it is incredibly tough out there for small business. I do not expect those opposite to know anything about the way of small businesses, because they pride themselves on getting involved in big business and then they reduce them to small business. They have no credibility at all in relation to small business in this country.

Small business is doing it tough, Australian families are doing it tough, and there should not be one person in this chamber who does not know how much electricity and other services have gone up in the last two years. They have gone up quite dramatically—and compared with a lot of people in this country we are well remunerated. I will just go through the figures. I think some 6.5 cents per litre is predicted to go on top of petrol prices if this goes through. If you are living in inner Sydney or inner Melbourne, the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister—or is he the Prime Minister down the other end here—you do not know the impact of increased petrol prices. Get into the country and you will see what the impact of petrol prices is. Get into the country and see the families who have to drive their kids to two or three schools every morning and come back every afternoon. You go and speak to them about what impact petrol prices have on their families. Go and speak to those people who have lost all their crops in the last month and see how they will be doing it over the next 12 months, whether they can afford increased electricity, gas and petrol prices. The clear fact is that they cannot do so, and why we would be ahead of the pack in relation to this is beyond me. I am reminded that we emit just 1.28 per cent of global emissions; China, 22.3; the USA, 19.91; and the EU, 14.04. And we are leading the pack!

The outcome of this will be that you will be exporting nothing except our emissions. The Australian Labor Party will ensure that we are exporting nothing but our emissions, because that is what will happen. For all its sins, this country is a relatively clean emitter, but we are going to take our industry, particularly our manufacturing industry, away from this country and put it overseas in countries where they do not have the same controls that we have. That, to me, is a nonsensical outcome.

I have spoken to my colleague on my left, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, about the impact on the Illawarra, for example, and the jobs that we have lost in the Illawarra. That will take place all over the country. If you are looking at Victoria, look at the impact on a company like Alcoa, which is a very big employer in Victoria, and there will be plenty of others in a similar position.

I will finish where I started. I express my sincere condolences to those who have suffered so badly during these floods. I plead with the Australian Labor Party not to proceed with this tax and most certainly not to proceed with a new carbon tax.

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

If Senator Ronaldson cannot run an argument for 20 minutes about the flood levy, I do not think there is much value in his arguments at all. I rise to speak on the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. We all know that Australia has been hit very hard by natural disasters this past summer, with floods occurring across the nation. We have also faced bushfires and a category 5 cyclone, as well as other storms.

Queensland was hit particularly hard by the floods and by Cyclone Yasi. As a result of these terrible floods and cyclones in Queensland, much rebuilding needs to be done. We know that people lost their homes and their businesses, and vital community infrastructure was damaged or destroyed. We all know that rebuilding will take a long time and will be costly. It will require local communities and all levels of government to work together. Just as Australians support each other in times of natural disasters, we need to be there for each other in the rebuilding phase that follows. The Gillard government are committed to rebuilding after this destruction and we are also committed to sound economic management, and that means that some tough decisions have to be made. As is always the case following a disaster or tragedy, Australians have been generous in helping those who are suffering. The money donated by people across the country following the recent disasters has been most welcome and will help provide relief to those affected. This money will help people who have lost possessions or, worse still, their homes or livelihoods. These people will certainly appreciate that financial support and the generosity that it conveys.

However, as generous as Australians are, these contributions alone are not enough to rebuild all that has been lost. The Australian government will foot the largest share of the bill, as we should. We will not shirk our responsibilities and we will not avoid the challenges presented by these disasters. We will face them head on. We need to rebuild and we need to do it as quickly as possible. We need to prioritise the rebuilding so that the most crucial facilities and infrastructure are rebuilt first.

The Australian government estimates that the contribution needed from federal funds is a minimum of $5.6 billion. That is a massive amount of money, as we all know. In fact it is about 30 times the amount that has been contributed to the Premier’s relief fund. As everyone would appreciate, we need to find this money in addition to continuing to fund our regular programs and services; we cannot simply put everything on hold until the rebuilding is complete. The $5.6 billion does not even include the damages from Cyclone Yasi. The government has assessed the damage from the floods and has decided that the best approach to meeting the cost of reconstruction is to find the money in two ways. Some of the money, two-thirds of it in fact, will come from budget savings. Spending in some areas will be cut or deferred, which, unfortunately, is necessary to meet the costs of the floods. However, in order that more services do not have to be cut or deferred, the government is asking taxpayers to contribute by paying a one-off levy.

For those on the other side, who really do not seem to understand, it is a one-off levy; it is only for a year. The government is not prepared to delay a return to surplus. We said that we would return to surplus by 2012-13 and we will meet that promise. Good economic management dictates that it is sensible not to add pressure to areas that are already stretched. Despite the damage inflicted by the floods and Cyclone Yasi, Australia’s economy will be back at capacity in 2011-12. Australia has $380 billion in mining projects in the pipeline, we have a skills shortage on the horizon and our wages are at healthy levels. These are pressures that are likely to be even more pronounced as we enter 2012-13, our projected year of return to surplus. The government has taken a well-informed decision. It is a sensible economic goal.

The government firmly believes in a balanced approach to meeting the costs of the floods, which is why we have chosen to cut some spending programs, to defer some infrastructure and to impose a modest temporary levy. As I said—and I will keep saying it because those on the other side really do not seem to understand it—the levy the government is introducing is a one-off levy which will apply only to people on incomes of more than $50,000 a year. The spending cuts and deferrals combined will raise $3.8 billion, and the proposed levy will raise $1.8 billion. Despite the levy being modest and sensible, those opposite, in their usual fashion, have decided to oppose it. Before we had the theatrics of Senator Ronaldson yelling, getting very vocal and very loud, as though raising his voice will make a difference to what the people of Australia really want—and the people of Australia are quite supportive of this levy. But those on the other side go around scaremongering, trying to frighten people, giving misinformation, using the ‘tax’ word when they know it is a levy. We all know that the opposition love to oppose for opposition’s sake, and once again this is what they are doing. We had hoped that they might see that the levy is necessary for the rebuilding process, but they have failed to do that.

The Australian people have every right to ask tough questions of the government in order that they understand our decisions. Unlike those opposite, most Australians understand that the levy is an important part of the rebuilding. They understand that budget savings plus some moderate contribution from Australian taxpayers is a fair and balanced approach to raising the needed funds. In opposing this levy the opposition have conveniently forgotten their history of imposing levies. They imposed six different levies during their 12 years in government. If raising a levy is, as they claim, a sign of incompetent budget management, then what does that say about the government they ran? They also tried to impose other levies, unsuccessfully. In fact, since being in opposition Tony Abbott has proposed a levy to fund his paid parental leave scheme. They accuse us of being the party of high taxes, yet while we were trying to cut company tax they were trying to raise it. Abbott’s proposed levy was a tax on families at the checkouts at Coles and Woolies to help pay the wages of women taking maternity leave—women who are already earning $150,000 a year.

Tony Abbott has had several different positions on flood recovery. He embarrassed himself by saying that the National Broadband Network could be scrapped to pay for flood reconstruction. He forgot to account for the fact that the NBN is not just an expense; it is an investment with a commercial return. Then, in early February, he made the statement that there were $8 billion in funds, including in the Building Australia Fund, that were uncommitted. Later he had to revise that down to $2 billion. Both statements are incorrect, and it is a shame that Mr Abbott would attempt to mislead the Australian people to make political gain over such a sensitive issue. Tony Abbott finally settled on the coalition’s current policy when he announced that the coalition would propose further budget savings as an alternative to the $1.8 billion raised by the levy. But how could we possibly trust the opposition to make savings? How can we trust Tony Abbott on his promise when he had a $10.6 billion black hole in his 2010 election costings? Of course it took them two weeks after Mr Abbott made that statement to actually come up with their proposals—two weeks, while he had a fight with his deputy and shadow cabinet over what savings to make. That is what the delay was all about: Liberal infighting. It seems that Mr Abbott’s attempts to make political mileage out of this tragedy know no bounds. After all, while Australians were digging deep to help with the flood recovery, Mr Abbott was soliciting political donations to help fight the flood levy.

We know that no-one likes to pay extra taxes; we absolutely know that. However, we also know that most Australian people are happy to pay a modest contribution—the word is ‘modest’—under extraordinary circumstances like those we now face. The Gillard government has received a number of high-profile endorsements for our proposed levy. For example, Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia, has put aside political differences to support the levy.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who?

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

Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia. He said:

I believe most Australians, most West Australians, are willing to contribute a little bit more to help Queensland get back on its feet.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said:

... as a nation we have come together in the past to help out the milk industry, the sugar industry, the workers of Ansett and to buyback guns after the Port Arthur tragedy. I think the people of Queensland are at least as important as all of those other levies in the past.

She is right. The people of Queensland are important—just as important as all other Australians in need of support. The government has also received support from the NGO sector. These organisations include the Australian Council of Social Service and the Salvation Army. The Australian newspaper also supported the levy. An editorial said:

... the imposition of the levy is reasonable and responsible.

That sums up what a good government should be. The Gillard government’s approach to funding flood reconstruction is both reasonable and responsible.

Debate interrupted.