Posts

Taxes, Traps and Tactics in the 2026 Budget

,

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 represent a cynical, ideological attack on everyday Australians under the guise of intergenerational equity. Instead of fostering wealth creation, Labor is driving a strategy of division to fund social engineering and buy votes.

We support the modest tax cuts and the $1,000 deduction placeholder. What we don’t support is the harmful capital gains tax and negative gearing measures.

Labor relies on “poison pills” — packaging toxic tax grabs alongside popular measures to deceive the public.

One Nation is committed to fighting for smaller government, protecting essential services and allowing Australians to keep their hard-earned money and secure their financial future.

Transcript

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget was a victory of ideology over decency. The fundamental ideology of this Labor government is one which ignores wealth creation in favour of wealth redistribution and division, otherwise known as buying votes with other people’s money. This is a deliberate strategy of division or, more accurately, a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Implicit in this strategy is a simple maxim: ‘It doesn’t matter how much hate you get from those whose votes you don’t need.’ It’s callous policy, cynical, dishonest and in the end self-defeating, as every communist government in history has found out the hard way. When you take people’s stuff, they stop creating new stuff and the nation descends into poverty—time after time after time. 

Despite the lesson of history, here we are with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which rakes in $1.38 billion in additional taxation in the first full year, 2027-28. This is a tax grab. This is before the $350 million backdown announced last week. How badly does this government need that money to take the electoral criticism they’ve received over a measure which is 0.2 per cent of budget revenue? 

This bill takes from those who have created wealth to buy votes from those who have not yet created wealth—our young. And yet, according to the Productivity Commission and updated JBWere financial modelling, an estimated $3.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion in assets will pass from Baby Boomers to younger generations through to 2050. The speed of the transfer is increasing. Inheritances have more than doubled since 2002. Wealth passing between generations has risen from roughly $120 billion per year to an expected $500 billion per year in 2045. This government is trying to buy votes amongst young people with money they would have received anyway. That’s the fatal flaw in this bill—the lie, the deceit. It’s these trillions of dollars in inheritance that have become the grand prize of this communist Labor government’s theft. 

Labor wants to steal more of everyone’s money, including from the young, and lock the young out of building assets for later in life. Lock you out! Labor’s intergenerational equity and intergenerational wealth transfer lies will in fact really create intergenerational poverty—a veritable gold mine of money from taxing everyone for Labor and its bureaucrats to use to bankroll Labor’s social engineering and to buy votes from their target demographics, which, for the record, are ABC journalists, university academics, immigrants from any country as long as it’s not a Christian country and union bosses, although only the militant kind. Not only will our young people receive less in the long run, they will receive less in the short term, owing to changes in the capital gains tax. Previously, any capital gain was discounted 50 per cent and then taxed as part of your normal income. This meant young people just starting out did not pay a lot of tax, especially those trading while at uni or TAFE. Not anymore. Now the full value of the profit will be taxed and at a minimum rate of 30 per cent, not your marginal rate. Even worse, more value trades and assets like trading cards or parts of a bitcoin over $500 are now treated the same for compliance purposes as large stocks portfolios. Do you have a $500 Pokemon card? Congratulations! Here’s the compliance you’ll need to meet, including valuations and notifications for a Pokemon card, you evil capitalist you. Off to the re-education camp you go. There will be none of this ‘trying to get ahead’ under this Labor government. The deceit of this government to pretend this bill is about intergenerational wealth when the real impact will be to make it harder for young people to get ahead—that’s why the budget has been called the worst in living memory. Not only were the key measures toxic, the justification for taking those measures was a lie. It doesn’t add wealth and opportunity for young people. It takes it away. Everyone except rusted-on Labor diehards saw straight through it. Our young have seen through it, and baby boomers are furious. They didn’t work their whole lives to create wealth just so the government could come along and take a massive chunk to fund social engineering. 

One Nation’s response to these measures is simple: don’t do it. Let Australians create their own wealth and use that wealth to benefit their children. For many Australians, the bank of mum and dad is in play to help young people get their own home. Assistance from parents has risen from 15 per cent of new mortgages in the 1980s to 40 per cent of new mortgages today. I know when I mention family that a lot of our constituents will be thinking, ‘I don’t have a family, since my parents got divorced and my parents lost their house in the divorce. What do you have to pass on?’ I acknowledge those who are in that position. Your feelings and concerns are real. One Nation understands that, which is why our low-start mortgage will allow your personal superannuation account to provide a large share of your home deposit. This will allow you to get into your own home once you have a job, a work history and proven capacity to repay. 

When it comes to the broader policy environment, including taxation and regulation, the response to Senator Hanson’s amazing speech at the GetUp! press club in Canberra last week carries a warning. Our opponents will spin One Nation’s policies and words so far, so tightly that Pauline Hanson could knit a sweater with them. Our policies do take a moment of serious thought to grasp. On one hand, One Nation policy does contain measures which need to be funded through some level of taxation. We will support and defend Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, aged pensions and the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those who are actually disabled, along with unemployment benefits for those looking for work and sickness benefits for those who legitimately can’t work, amongst other measures. These are what make Australia a civilised society. 

On the other hand, our campaign for smaller government is based on an overarching principle of allowing Australians to keep more of their own money and providing an economic environment that encourages people to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour. This is not an absolutist argument. It’s one of degree—a balance between a government of decency and a government of waste. The Chalmers-Albanese government has crossed over the line out of decency into waste and hypocrisy and deceit, and, as a result, One Nation ranks are swelling. Labor obviously feel that entrepreneurs are not their demographic. You show that repeatedly. Interestingly, a large number of small-business people coming into One Nation are saying the same thing about the Liberals. ALP arrogance has been on display in the development of these proposals. No open consultation occurred and no white papers. The measures were drawn up behind closed doors and then dumped on the public, vomited onto the public. The committee stage for this bill was a farce engineered to manipulate a favourable report—deceit yet again. 

This Labor government has made a mockery of the committee system across legislation, referrals and Senate estimates to the point where a review is needed to find a way to stop this abuse from ever happening again. The government has been forced to remove some of the worst elements of their tax grab. Great—now remove the rest! 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 includes a provision to limit negative gearing to new properties only. Negative gearing allows someone on a wage or salary to buy a second property, or more, and claim the net cost of that property against their tax. Any net profit is considered taxable income—it’s taxed. Many Australians have used this method to get ahead. It’s most common in retirement, with couples purchasing their retirement home near retirement and then renting it out to help pay it off until they’re ready to move in. Then they rent out their family home to fund their retirement. 

It’s true that this is a concession which tends to be used at higher-income levels. Here are the facts. The top 20 per cent of wage and salary earners own 40 per cent of investment properties and claim 60 per cent of the tax deductions. Before this bill, there was no limit to the number of homes that a person could negatively gear other than the ability of their income to cover the cost. 

One Nation believes—our policy has shown this before today and shows this right now—that a large property portfolio is not something that should be set against a salary. It’s a business, and the person should have a corporate structure which is appropriate for that business. One Nation will limit negative gearing to two properties. This is enough for Australians to invest in real estate and lift themselves up without misusing the tax system. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, though, cancels negative gearing on existing homes entirely, and it allows unlimited negative gearing on new builds. So that older couple I mentioned before, buying their retirement home and renting it out to help pay for it—they can’t negatively gear. Yet a high-income earner can buy up a whole new block of flats and negatively gear that. Where’s the justice? How is that fair? How does that advance intergenerational equity? It doesn’t. It drives intergenerational poverty. 

There are two other measures in this bill. One Nation will support the $5-a-week tax cut. Although $250 a year is nothing towards offsetting the rising cost of living, it’s money better off in workers’ pockets than in the government’s pockets, where it’d be eaten up before it even gets into play in 2027. As a reminder, One Nation policy will put a lot more into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will index the tax thresholds to ensure nobody is forced into a higher tax bracket because they got a pay rise to make up for inflation. That’s the stealth tax. I’ve tried twice to amend Treasury bills, once under the Liberals and once under Labor. Both times, both parties said they loved the idea—but not now. 

One Nation will leave schedule 4 in the bill. That is the no-documentation-required $1,000 for tax deductible expenses. I’m concerned that people who are entitled to more than $1,000 will lazily tick that box to save time, although opposing what is a benefit for the many on the basis of what it could do for the few is the wrong decision. 

One Nation is moving an amendment to remove schedule 1, capital gains tax, and schedule 2, negative gearing, from the bill. If that amendment fails, we will oppose this bill. 

The Labor Party have taken to using a deceitful trick to make it look like One Nation opposed pay rises for workers, which is false. Instead, this is to add a measure to a bill which they know One Nation will not support. In this case, it’s the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes hurting the young and the old. It’s called a poison pill. It’s not their idea; the parties of globalisation around the world are using it to frame conservative parties as hateful of workers when the reverse is true. Tricks destroy trust and kill truth. Prime Minister Albanese gives so much material himself to the Fire the Liar campaign across the nation. Poison pills allow their fake ‘independent’ websites like They Vote For You to lie and say One Nation voted against tax cuts, for instance, when, in fact, the Albanese government wrapped the tax cuts in legislation that could not be supported—it had to be opposed. Labor refuses to put the measures separately. Had they put the measures separately, we would have supported the tax cut, minuscule though it is. Another Labor lie is its claim this bill is tax reform. It’s not. Instead it increases tax complexity, which leads to increased fees for accountants, lawyers and valuers when preparing tax returns for which the people pay. Taxpayers pay even more when doing their return. This is not reform; it’s a rip-off for which you, the people of Australia, pay—including the young. Anyone interested in honest political discussion should treat the OpenAustralia Foundation and their propaganda arm They Vote for You with utter contempt. Their subscribers apparently do, because their most recent report admits a $50,000 loss. It’s not working—perhaps try impartiality and honesty next time—nor is it having any effect. 

The growth of One Nation is proof the public are breaking what has been a lifelong allegiance to the tired old parties—yes, you two—and are instead embracing One Nation policies that will restore wealth and abundance for all Australians. Labor’s dirty tricks and lies will not stop One Nation from voting in the best interests of everyday Australians. We want to make Australia a land of abundance and opportunity again for the old and the young. 

/0 Comments/by

Spousal Super Transfers: A Win for Families

,

When I first saw the title of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I assumed it was just more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals and was ready to throw it in the bin. It turns out the title is misleading. The bill itself isn’t woke at all; it’s a sensible measure that allows spouses to transfer superannuation to even out their accounts, helping smaller balances grow faster. It works both ways, which makes good financial sense, especially as women are now earning more university degrees than men and female earnings are bound to outstrip male earnings in some households.

Supporting families is a key plank of One Nation policy and one of the essential building blocks for human progress, alongside freedom, the rule of law, secure property rights, fair taxation, cheap energy, and honest money.

While Labor opposes this bill because they only want to tax, tax, tax and waste money while crushing the middle class, One Nation is proud to support it because it helps families.

Transcript

We support this concept in One Nation because One Nation supports families, but I’ll get on to that more in a little while. When I saw the title of this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I thought: ‘This one is going in the bin. It’s more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals.’ But the bill title is false; it’s misleading. Why? Is it because the Liberal Party needs to appease the Liberal moderates? Is it to attract the Greens vote? Is it because the Liberal-Nationals have become woke, continue to be woke? Oh, by the way, Liberal and Labor are exchanging barbs about females and looking after females. There’s only one party with a female leader, and that’s One Nation. 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, that’s right; you’re correct—the Greens. 

Senator O’Neill: What about Senator Wong? Women are invisible to you. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O’Neill, you should not be interjecting—on your feet particularly. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure why the Liberals would feel the need to give this bill a woke name when the contents of the bill are nothing of the sort. This bill allows a spouse to transfer some of their super to their spouse’s superannuation account, to even them out. That makes sense. Small super accounts grow more slowly than larger accounts, so lifting up your partner’s account is a sensible exercise in financial management. The bill is well worded. The calculation on how much of a person’s balance can be transferred is clearly expressed and fair. 

In an era where women are earning more university degrees than men, 58 per cent to 42 per cent female to male, it’s inevitable that female earnings will outstrip male earnings in some households. This bill works both ways. It builds on our superannuation income-splitting policy of lowering the tax rates for a family with at least one dependent child and one partner not working so he or she can look after the child, splitting the income and reducing the tax to give more after-tax income, to encourage families. We introduced that concept. We also introduced tax bracket indexation to get rid of the stealth tax on income tax. 

Families need support. That’s a key plank to One Nation policy. There are eight keys to human progress. They include: (1) freedom, which is being destroyed in this country under the uni party; (2) rule of law, which is being destroyed by making feelings part of law and ignoring the truth and contradicting the truth; (3) constitutional continuation for the stability of governance; (4) secure property rights; (5) strong families—strong families are essential for human progress. Families are one of the building blocks, one of the two key structures. The other is the nation state rather than a globalist approach. No. 6 is fair, efficient taxation to pay for government but to minimise that taxation, to minimise the size of government; (7) is to have cheap, affordable energy; and (8) is to have honest money. All of these things are being destroyed by the Labor and Liberal uni party. 

One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor’s tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill. 

/0 Comments/by

The Illusion of a Pay Rise

,

In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut is simply compensating for government-driven inflation rather than getting people ahead. Worse, these increases push taxpayers into higher tax brackets, leaving many workers worse off with very little of their pay rise left to keep.

To fix this, One Nation has a clear policy: we will index tax brackets to inflation. This ensures that getting a wage rise to fight inflation won’t push you into a higher tax bracket, offsetting the previous year’s inflation.

While Liberals joined Labor to defeat our amendment in 2025, pressure from One Nation has since brought the Liberals around, though Labor still refuses — showing they certainly don’t represent workers anymore.

Labor claims this will cost over $30 billion a year. Reality is that the cost depends entirely on inflation. No inflation means no cost at all. Their high estimates simply prove they expect inflation to remain out of control under their watch.

One Nation also propose allowing income splitting for families with a dependent, putting $9,000 a year back into the pockets of single-income families who choose it.

One Nation proudly stands up for Australian families and workers with common-sense tax reform.

Transcript

In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut, rather than getting people ahead, just compensates for government driving inflation. Worse, these increases move many taxpayers into higher tax brackets, increasing their tax rate and leaving many workers worse off, as many are finding when they see how little of this week’s pay rise they actually get to keep. 

One Nation policy will solve this. We’ll index tax brackets to inflation so that getting a wage rise to compensate for inflation does not put you into a higher tax bracket; inflation one year will be offset by tax brackets being lifted the next year. In 2025, the Labor government joined with the Liberals to oppose and defeat our amendment to index tax brackets. Because of the heat One Nation applied to the Liberals, the Liberals now agree with One Nation. Labor still does not, which is telling about who they represent these days—certainly not workers. This move will cost around $22 billion over the forward estimates and may come in at a much higher rate over time. Labor will engage in a scare campaign, of course, over this cost. The reality is that the costing depends on inflation; no inflation means no cost at all. Labor advances a cost above $30 billion a year. This means Labor is really saying they expect inflation under their government to remain out of control. Tax cuts take the pressure off businesses to give larger wage rises, countering the wage-price spiral that harms business, workers and every Australian. 

Another major element of our income tax policy is to allow income splitting between families with a dependent, if that suits them. Families with two wage earners will probably keep their existing arrangements. Families with one income who split will have $9,000 a year back in their pocket. The PBO has put the cost to budget revenue at $7 billion a year, depending upon uptake. Money well spent helping families. One Nation represents families and workers. These are just two of many, many tax reform policies we took to— (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Socialist Bedroom Tax

Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity

Desperation has taken over the Treasury.

Jim Chalmers is staring down a trillion-dollar black hole which is threatening to consume the bedrock of Labor’s leadership strategy – soft-core socialism.

Thanks to poor choices, reckless spending, self-indulgent policy, and attempts to buy voter loyalty with last-minute election promises – the wealth of Australia has been spent.

There’s nothing left.

It’s all gone.

Government addiction to public money has become a threat to the savings of sensible Australians who did everything right.

And that’s not all.

Barely three years into Albanese’s ‘era’ as Prime Minister, the government hasn’t only run out of other people’s money – it’s run out of other people’s homes.

With 1,544 migrants coming into the country every day, Australians are being squeezed out of the housing market by deliberate government policy designed to cook the Treasury books with migration numbers – fabricating economic growth to disguise a financial crisis.

Wrecking the housing market is cruel and it’s leading to equally cruel policy thought-bubbles designed to kick innocent, hard-working people out of their family homes to ‘make way’ for new arrivals.

Introducing … the ‘Bedroom Tax’.

Essentially, instead of being entitled to the property you worked hard to earn – the government thinks you’re entitled to the living space it deems appropriate for your family size. If you’re single – get into that shoebox! It’s one step from a coffin.

Without any attempt to disguise the motivation of this tax behind ‘productivity’ or ‘environmental concerns’, this particular potential tax is expressly designed to pressure people financially into abandoning their homes.

And this time, it’s not solely directed at conservative-leaning retirees ‘downsizing’. This tax comes after struggling young Aussies trying to start a family or work from home.

If you have what the government perceives as ‘extra’ bedrooms, those will be taxed.

The government knows this is a cost-of-living crisis and that any tax will tip a renter or owner over the edge. The point is to weaponise poverty against living space.

It doesn’t matter if that room is an office, a bedroom for relatives, or a room set aside for a future child. The government wants that space right now.

Let me preface this by saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Australians be forced to bargain for the rooms in their home. Private property is exactly that. Private. Australians are under no obligation to justify the space they have chosen to live in. It is not the Treasurer’s business how many rooms a person has or what those rooms contain.

If you find yourself negotiating over bedrooms – you have come to live under a communist dictatorship.

One Nation will never, ever, accept this sort of infringement into the living space of people who should be commended for doing everything possible to carve out a comfortable life for themselves and their families. This is the first-world, after all. Or it used to be.

Nor should anyone feel guilty for having room to breathe.

That is an aspiration.

It is an achievement.

Not a sin.

The Bedroom Tax is an outrageous and toxic proposition, which is why the Labor government have not floated it directly.

Using the cover of the ‘Productivity Roundtable’ (a tax-spawning Petri dish of ‘industry leaders’), various university academics and ‘economists’ have come out of the woodwork to publish their tax wish lists in the media.

It is common practice for a weak government to allow these entities in the press to do the bulk of the dirty work when it comes to introducing new taxes. They let the bad ideas float around and normalise until the outrage dies down into discussion. Which is where the danger starts. Discussion quickly becomes a negotiation and, if not stopped early, the government picks up these ideas – claims they have ‘community support’ – and then implements them without having to own-up to their creation.

That is not good enough.

Socialism by stealth is not a productive future for Australia.

Which is why I confronted the Senate this week seeking answers on the topic of the Bedroom Tax.

If, as some have claimed, this is ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – why did the Labor government refuse to rule out a Bedroom Tax?

Surely that would be straightforward…

It is not difficult to say the words, ‘We will not tax your spare bedrooms.’

Easy? No. What we saw in the Senate was a masterclass of avoidance where Senator Gallagher ‘uh’d’ and ‘um’d’ her way through replies that did everything except reject the tax.

I asked the Senator if the government would ‘force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty – a tax – if they don’t’ and added:

‘Why did the Roundtable even consider this monstrous idea and will the Labor Party rule it?’

Senator Gallagher replied:

‘Thank you – uh – President, I thank Senator Roberts – uh – for the question. Uh – there was a pretty wide discussion on – uh – tax in Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of those sessions – uh – and I was not at a session where that was raised – uh – Senator Roberts – uh – there was discussion around housing as you would expect and – um – you know, different views being put around the table – uh – I think that – the – what I – what I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was there was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient – uh – there were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation – um – and there were also discussions – uh – around intergenerational equity – about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised was not raised with me … it’s not something the government has worked on.’

No, perhaps not, but taxing bedrooms is something that was headlining the media discussion during the Roundtable with serious intent.

Too many times, ideas hatched by university economists mysteriously find their way into government policy – particularly when we have the Treasurer grasping at straws, brainstorming all manner of tax (including tax on imaginary profits).

Why won’t Labor rule the Bedroom Tax out?

Is it already scrawled in the margin notes of the Treasurer’s Budget?

Has it been discussed?

Would Labor consider it?

‘No plans’ does not mean ‘no’.

As we have learned from Albanese declaring ‘no change to super’ – ‘no plans’ means ‘probably’.

My question to the Senator has been viewed over 150,000 times and of the thousands of replies I have received, the overwhelming response to Ms Gallagher is, ‘She didn’t answer the question.’

Rarely have I seen a tax instill more fury in voters – particularly young voters.

Private property is the last outpost of sanity we have in a nation swiftly falling into the arms of socialism. Labor has created a high-taxing, over-spending, open-borders, anti-productivity, unfair and over-crowded reality that Australians barely recognise from the paradise of 30 years ago.

Our homes are the nests into which we raise the next generation. We should not live in fear that a spare corner could bankrupt the family.

Labor MUST go on the record ruling out the Bedroom Tax or we will be forced to conclude that Jim Chalmers is keeping it in reserve if he cannot squeeze enough out of people’s retirement funds.

Labor’s socialist bedroom tax by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity

Read on Substack
/by

End Bracket Creep – the Stealth Tax!

,

One Nation moved an amendment to a tax bill to end bracket creep, demonstrating our commitment to ending the Liberal-Labor stealth tax, who use inflation to push people into higher tax brackets.

The last time we moved to end bracket creep, both major parties and the Nationals claimed they were against it, yet they voted against our amendment. Why? Because they lie! They like bracket creep because it’s a stealth tax – a secret tax. Both depend on bracket creep to quietly take more money from workers.

One Nation wants to reform taxation and put more money in people’s pockets. At this election, vote One Nation #1

Transcript

Here we go again—bracket creep. Australians rightly complain that politicians from both major parties have no vision for our country’s future prosperity. It’s all just short-term budgets that never look beyond the next election. That’s why, tonight, One Nation is moving an amendment to the 2025 budget that would benefit our children’s children and everyone in Australia today. If successful, our amendment would remove the secret tax, the stealth tax, known as bracket creep. Bracket creep is where the government quietly takes more tax from Australians because of inflation. The government uses inflation to take more tax out of every Australian. This simple amendment to end bracket creep would save Australians tens of billions of dollars each year. It’s another One Nation plan to put more money back in your pocket. 

So let me explain. As inflation continues, wages increase to try and keep up. A salary might go up from $100,000 to $120,000, yet, because of inflation, you can still only buy the same things because prices have risen. Despite being able to only buy the same things, your tax bill goes up because, on paper, the salary has gone up and been pushed into a higher tax bracket with a higher rate of tax. Inflation pushes up the salary you need to survive every year, yet the tax thresholds stay in exactly the same place. As salaries increase, they enter a higher tax rate bracket. This is bracket creep. One Nation would end it. We would index the income tax thresholds to inflation so you do not enter a higher tax rate bracket, making sure Australians don’t pay a higher tax rate because of inflation. 

Tax reform is mentioned a lot in parliament. Here’s a genuine opportunity to do it. Australians are being squeezed from every angle. The current tax system is bleeding Australians dry while letting foreign multinational corporations rip off the country. Tonight, One Nation is proposing a policy that will tip the balance back towards helping Australians because we believe in putting more money back in Australians’ pockets. At the election, vote One Nation No. 1. 

How They Voted

The Liberals, Nationals and Labor claim to support tax bracket indexation, yet twice I have moved an amendment to introduce it, and both times they have voted it down. The major parties want to dishonestly continue their thieving stealth tax.

/4 Comments/by

Tax Reform Urgently Needed to Create a Fairer System for All Australians

,

I believe we need to have comprehensive tax reform. Australia’s current tax system is destructive. Individuals on average incomes pay a staggering 68% of their income in various taxes, meaning they work nearly half the year just to cover government obligations. With median incomes at $67,000, many Australians are struggling.

We need reform to address the regressive nature of the tax system, which hits the less fortunate the hardest. Let’s strive for a fairer, simpler tax future for all Australians.

Transcript

In my first speech, in 2016, and many times since, I’ve called for comprehensive tax reform. The tax system in Australia as it exists is our country’s most destructive system, and not just exorbitant tax rates. I’ll give you some figures from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Someone on the average income paid 68 per cent of their income to government in the form of rates levies, fees, charges, special charges and special levies—68 per cent. That means someone’s working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay the government. 

Since then, it’s got much more complex and more absurd, and some of the data I’ll give you is more recent. Some of the figures are indicative, not definitive. The ABS average income figure is $100,000. The median income figure is $67,000. Life is tough for people on the median. In 2015 Joe Hockey said that a typical person in Australia pays 50 per cent in tax—works from January to June to pay the government, and then gets to keep from July to December. Basically, as I said, people are working at least half the year—probably 68 per cent of the year—for government. 

Then we think about the tax. Tax on a house, according to a News Corporation article a few years ago and according to recent figures, is 45 to 50 per cent of the house price, The effective tax rate is 80 to 100 per cent. International accountant and auditor Derek Smith in Queensland says that 50 per cent of the price of bread is tax, which is an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Petrol excise and tax varies. At 70 per cent, the effective tax rate is 230 per cent. So, a worker on the average income on payday gives 21 per cent of his or her gross income to the government. With what’s left—that’s 79 per cent—she the next day wakes up in her house and pays 80 to 100 per cent to have that house and makes some sandwiches because food is too expensive to purchase wherever she works. So, that’s a tax of 100 per cent. Then she fills up at the petrol station on her way to work, and that costs her 230 per cent tax. 

Then we have GST. GST can be levied on bills, including stamp duty, so we’ve got a tax on a tax. So, there are three aspects. First, there’s the total tax paid. Second, how is it levied? And third, is it enforced fairly? Ultimately, the people pay a tax in the form of higher prices. So, it doesn’t matter if a company is being taxed or if another entity is being taxed; they pass it on to the customers. 

Cost of living, inflation, overregulation and many other factors make sure that today’s system of government impositions—government cost recovery—is highly regressive. Look at the carbon dioxide tax and offsets—a UN tax, driven by the UN, introduced by the Liberals-Nationals in 2015 under Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull and now ramped up under this government with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. We’ve got a highly regressive imposition of taxation and other charges by the government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the median income is $67,000. People on that median income are doing it extremely tough because of government and the mishmash that’s evolved in the taxation system. 

That takes care of terms of reference (a) and (b) in Senator Rennick’s motion. I agree with them; in fact, I agree with his whole motion, and I thank him for his motion. I’ve raised the need for comprehensive tax reform many times, so I support this motion. 

Then we see the core, one of the bedrocks of our federal system and Constitution—competitive federalism. That is being converted under the current tax system to competitive welfarism, destroying productivity in this country. The way competitive federalism should work is it promotes competition between the states—not cut-throat competition, just competition for efficiency. As I said yesterday, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier of Queensland, abolished death duties in Queensland and people moved to Queensland to retire, which developed the Gold Coast. The other states then saw their people were leaving, so they abolished death duties too. Now we’ve got Labor—and the Greens, I think—wanting to put in place a central death duty as a state duty—centrally imposed, no competition, no accountability. When you have a marketplace in governance because the state can’t operate according to their needs and the needs best suited to their constituents, then you have competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance, and that is priceless. One of the reasons we’ve got such low accountability in state and federal parliament is it’s too easy for the states to blame the feds and the feds to blame the states, as I said yesterday. The GST undoes competitive federalism and replaces it with competitive welfarism. It’s a reward for states like Tasmania and South Australia to be inefficient and not use their resources and, instead, bludge off of Western Australia. 

I mentioned yesterday that systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude, and the combination of behaviour and attitudes along with values and leadership and symbols determine the culture, which is the most important determinant of productivity, security and accountability. Energy prices, as I said, are a huge regressive tax on the poor. Massive record immigration is a huge regressive tax on housing, especially on the poor. As I list some of these examples, as Senator Rennick listed some of his examples, I urge you to think about the impact on our culture in this country. 

The tax system is Australia’s most destructive system. What behaviours does it drive? We’ve got the best and brightest accountants and lawyers in this country fighting the government, not helping our producers to fight our competitors overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. We’ve now got a tax system that’s grown-up like Topsy; it’s a mishmash of dishonest promises to various vested interests for favours. What behaviours does that drive? Is that productive? It’s certainly not productive. Inefficient or suboptimal allocation of capital, allocation of resources, leads to inefficient or suboptimal decisions and a waste of resources and inefficient allocation to minimise tax rather than to maximise wealth and value. 

Then we have the ATO in a position where it can level complaints against people and businesses—small businesses particularly, because they don’t have the lawyers to back them up. In addition to prosecuting those cases, they adjudicate on those cases. How can that be justice? It’s not justice. It leads to corruption—and we saw that in the Australian Taxation Office just a few years ago. 

There is the complexity of various structures that Senator Rennick mentioned; he’s got far more experience in that than I have. They’re unfair to people who can’t set up structures. Senator Rennick discussed some of the modern structures in the technologies that have come up. That increases the appeal for workarounds. 

Then we’ve got something that Senator Hanson has talked about for many years, since 1996: multinationals basically pay no or little company tax. These use their resources for free. We’ve got the world’s biggest freeloader, the biggest tax avoider in the world, Chevron, taking our gas and sending it overseas, using our infrastructure, using our security forces, using our education system and not paying much at all for the gas. This is a figure I got from Jim Killaly, the former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Large Business and International, who retired in 2015 or 2016. I’ve met him. He said in both the nineties and in 2010—and it’s quoted in the newspapers—that 90 per cent of Australia’s large businesses are foreign-owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. Who’s paying that share of tax? It’s the men and women of Australia, working families. 

Since 1953, when we had double taxation legislation enacted by the Menzies Liberal government, we’ve had foreign companies paying little or no company tax. In the 1980s, we had Labor, with the petroleum resource rent tax, making sure that large companies such as Chevron pay little or no tax when exporting our gas from the North West Shelf. Then we had transfer pricing rorts and so many other rorts, which Senator Rennick went into. So terms of reference (c) and (d) are definitely worth keeping. 

The tax reform, while it’s necessary and arguably one of the most important things in this country, is difficult because the uniparty, Liberal and Labor, sees new ideas, seizes on new ideas and then basically tells lies and misrepresents to destroy our tax system. Paul Keating, as Treasurer to Bob Hawke, introduced the concept of the GST. Later, when John Hewson raised it as opposition leader, who smashed it? Paul Keating smashed it. He destroyed the GST concept even though he’d come so close to putting it over the line in Australia. 

When Pauline Hanson, who wasn’t a senator at the time, got hold of the transaction tax, it was also sent to Costello by the originators of that taxation system and taxation proposal. Peter Costello, as Treasurer—and a good treasurer—was asked about it and he said: ‘Sounds like a good system. We must have a look at it.’ Then Senator Hanson introduced it to the public, and he used it to try to destroy her. 

And look at my motion for stopping bracket creep—a motion on a Labor bill for stopping bracket creep. Labor stood right up there and said it supports work to remove indexing of bracket creep, but it voted against it. The LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, did something similar. They stood up—Senator Hume, I think it was—and said, ‘We support removal of bracket creep, the stealth tax, the hidden tax, the deceit tax,’ but they voted against the indexation of bracket creep. Barely a few weeks later, Senator Sharma, in his first speech, said that one of his goals was to get rid of bracket creep. Well, pile on, but just a few weeks earlier he had voted against removing bracket creep. 

As Senator Rennick has already mentioned, the tax system has been wangled and mismanaged to protect special interest groups feeding off tax loopholes. The terms of reference (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all necessary. Tax is the cost of government. That’s necessary. But it’s now got to the point where tax, in this country of ours, is the cost of excess government interference and excess waste—well, all waste. It’s the cost of poor governance, and it’s the poor who pay regressively for it. 

I support Senator Rennick’s motion as a step to exposing the harm and inefficiency of the tax system. Because of the complexities of the tax system and because of the politics around it, I think the first thing to do is to get an agreement to understand that the tax system is so destructive and so inefficient. Senator Rennick’s motion is a commendable first step to exposing the inefficiencies and the unfairness in the tax system. Once there’s an agreement on the inefficiencies, then we need to develop principles—not a system but principles: for example, simplicity; efficiency, so the tax system actually collects more than the cost of implementing that tax; fairness; objectivity; and the fact that it’s inescapable, so we don’t have multinational companies coming here, stealing our resources and assets, using our infrastructure and our people, and skipping the country without paying their fair share. So we develop principles and get agreement on them, and then, once that’s done, the specific system falls out. 

I see Senator Rennick’s motion as leading to an important first step in identifying the problems and some of the solutions and then, ultimately, we can take the next step: comprehensive tax reform, defining the ultimate system and the transition of baby steps to getting there. I support Senator Rennick’s motion. Question agreed to. 

/3 Comments/by