Liberals' Budget Management

Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I thank Mr Bayley and the Greens for bringing this motion to the House. The motion is damning and some of the contributions probably speak to that quite loudly, both by members of the government and those speaking for the motion because what we're seeing is nothing we don't already know; the news doesn't get any better. We are seeing shocks from the war in the Persian Gulf and across the world with supply chains being disrupted and there is a significant crisis. The International Energy Agency has talked about how this shock is one of, if not the most significant shocks to the supply of fuel and the government needs to respond to this responsibly.

I rise clearly to speak in support of the motion and will add to the many ways which, and some of these have already been outlined, but I will add to other ways that the government could look at raising its own revenue. To close that off as a pathway to not causing this intergenerational debt - and it's not just a minor intergenerational debt, it's going to be a significant poor outcome for generations to come, as Mr Bayley has eloquently stated. 

I'll just talk about some of those suggestions that I'd like to add. According to last year's budget, the government gave out $268 million a year on payroll tax exemption. If we looked at how you might cut some of the expenditure, you might start to look at that. The renewable energy dividend should be means tested. If we are targeting those people who could be helped, people in financial and social disadvantage, then why not think about how any renewable energy dividend could be expended by the government?

The government steadfastly refuses to seek royalties from the salmon industry, which is apparently now worth $1.4 billion per annum. With that kind of turnover, the government raised $11 million from the salmon industry last financial year in the form of fees and levies, which is less than 1 per cent of that turnover. Levies on companies that apparently don't even pay company tax would be useful, but there's so many industry as we know is happy to pollute our waterways for their own profit and the government doesn't seem to see that as a financial cost and  cost to our environment.

The government could really consider it properly taxing the gambling industry for the harm it is causing our community. Simply taxing them at the same rate as those in other states could yield hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue.

Just going to at least one of the economists the government has totally ignored, Saul Eslake recommends abolishing stamp duty and replacing it with a broadly based land tax, including owner-occupied residential properties, with an appropriate tax‑free threshold provision for asset-rich but income-poor landowners to defer land tax payments as a charge against their estate and transitional provisions to avoid double taxation of recent property purchases. This proposal was initially championed in the Henry review and was supported by the Productivity Commission and the Business Council of Australia as a way to improve access to our housing system. As quoted in the Eslake report,

The principal economic arguments for such a reform – encouraging more efficient use of land, and enhancing labour mobility and productivity – have been set out in these publications.

Now, there has been further conjecture on that school of thought and the Thodey report to the New South Wales government made an important additional equity argument for this reform, so there are things to be teased out and looked at. There are plenty of reports that have been provided by various economists. Also, the fiscal sustainability report from the government's own department and, of course, there are other sources of information from other states and other jurisdictions.

The government could also look at increasing duties on the purchase of luxury petrol or diesel vehicles, which is also recommended by Saul Eslake, to bring Tasmania into line with the sort of duties being imposed in other states. Eslake writes,

The Commonwealth Grants Commission’s assessments referred to previously in this Chapter indicate that, on average over the four years to 2022-23, Tasmania raised 22.4% (or $48 million per annum) less from taxes and charges on the ownership and operation of motor vehicles than it would have done had its policies in this area been equivalent to the average for all states and territories.

Tasmania's mining royalties are not on par with other states, either. According to Saul Esake's 2024 report, the Commonwealth Grants Commission's assessments indicate that Tasmania collected, on average over 4 years to 2022‑23, almost 40 per cent less from mineral royalty revenues than it would have done had its royalty regime been equivalent to the average of all states and territories. It represents a shortfall in revenue averaging $42 million per annum over the 4 years to 2022‑23.

Using the tax system wisely and to the advantage of the general populace rather than disadvantaging those who shouldn't be disadvantaged is smart thinking. Heeding advice would be a sign that a government is listening. Unfortunately, what we've seen is that the government gave up taking advice long ago. It has not heeded Eslake, Gruen and the TPC on the stadium, and even the fiscal sustainability report.

This motion distils all of these concerns, and I thank Mr Bayley and the Greens for bringing this motion today.