Senator RYAN (Victoria) (7:26 PM) —I rise tonight to highlight an issue that should be—indeed will be—of concern to all Australians, if this government has its way. This government has used the veil of the Henry tax review to avoid making decisions that constitute reform. It is entirely consistent with the modus operandi of this government to avoid difficult economic decisions. Indeed, we heard the farcical statement from Senator Sherry this afternoon in question time that there was no link between government debt and interest rates. There is no better example of this government’s repudiation of the reforms of the last two decades than this ridiculous statement.
But it is not about the general economic direction of this government that I wish to speak this evening. It is about a much more insidious proposal, one that truly encapsulates its real agenda. Over the past several months we have seen reports of the Henry review considering what is euphemistically termed ‘congestion pricing’. Let us be honest about this: this is a new tax, a tax on something that we all take for granted, a tax on something that is intrinsic to our society. This represents a tax on the movement of people. In essence Australians will end up paying more to drive in peak-hour than they would if they drove down the same road at midday on Saturday. Some argue that this will lead to more rational pricing and efficient use of roads as people choose to drive at different times to reduce the so-called costs on congestion that are imposed on all road users.
But what this actually means in the real world is that the state is going to try to direct this most basic part of your life by controlling how and where you travel. Do we really want the government to be able to determine when and where we travel on roads that our parents and grandparents have already paid for? I hasten to add that I am not arguing against toll roads for new projects—‘user pays’ for new roads has a place—but we should seriously question whether there is a role for the state in determining whether or not we can travel and when we can travel around our own cities.
There is a principle here that we should hold dear. In a free society, the free movement of people should be a given. Every illiberal society in the 20th century has had controls on the movement of people. It is a fundamental test of whether a society is illiberal. In South Africa they had pass laws. In the USSR and Eastern Europe you had to present your papers. The state controlled where you could go. In China the state controls where people actually live—whether they stay in rural areas or move to the cities.
A tax, despite the fact that the government may argue that it is voluntary, is actually the government’s way of saying to you, ‘I am going to charge you if you make a particular choice.’ But is the free movement of our citizens around our own cities something that the state should be allowed to direct or even influence via taxation, punitive or otherwise? I put it to you that it is not, and it is not something that Australians will accept. The free movement of people is one of the great achievements of technology, particularly in the 20th century. And, yes, it is an achievement of the motor car. Despite it being somewhat unfashionable to say so in some circles these days, the motor car and individual transport have been an unqualified improvement for people’s lives and for our communities.
Despite this measure being cloaked in the language of efficiency, the truth is that any such tax represents the state limiting the free movement of people. In this case, what is more important to us? Is it choice or is it efficiency? Just because someone can claim to improve efficiency, with all the assumptions that that entails, does not make it a legitimate activity of the state or government. Using economic models to justify new state intrusions into our personal decisions is a developing habit of this Labor government and the various interests that seek to manage the lives of Australians. They want to put a tax on junk food, because it will allegedly save millions of dollars in the health system. But they do not want to tax foie gras. They put a tax on alcopops, because people are apparently drinking the wrong form of alcohol. Do we want a society where the government is making these decisions? It is not an argument about taxation per se; it is about what the legitimate ends to taxation are and what the legitimate ends to government are. What are the legitimate taxes that we must institute to provide the services that the community needs?
We do believe in a state with the safety net. But we tax people at the minimum level necessary to provide these services. Should the state or the government be telling you where and when you cannot go? No-one will fall for the trick that this tax is voluntary. Your choice to travel is voluntary; the tax is compulsory. The government, for the first time in Australian history, would be taxing movement around our cities and our nation.
This also represents a tax grab. We never hear of such charges and taxes being introduced in lieu of other taxes. Just like this government’s flawed CPRS, they always represent additions to our taxation burden. This measure will not only restrict freedom of movement but will open up a veritable flood of revenue for governments. And with the record debt being racked up by this Labor government we know that the agenda is to increase the tax burden on Australians to service it and to increase the government’s role in our lives.
As Liberals we have always opposed such measures. The increasing use of taxation to determine people’s behaviour represents an insidious threat to personal freedoms. Not being able to go to work when you choose or go to the footy when you choose and being taxed for moving around your own city represent new and unprecedented roles for government in Australia. Being taxed for travelling or eating a particular food that you choose just because some social or economic planner decides that the country would be better off if you did not is one hallmark of an illiberal society.
Markets are a means to an end. Markets allow people to make their own choices. They lead to the most efficient outcomes. They should not be fettered by governments where at all possible, because governments cannot make these choices as well as individuals or for individuals. The language of markets is being used for insidious ends. We need to closely examine all claims for so-called state and government imposed market signals for what should remain personal choices. And we should do so very sceptically. The Left and the Labor Party are cloaking their agenda of state control of these personal choices and lives in the language of the market and efficiency. But that does not hide its true intent. This tax that is being considered by the Henry review would represent an unprecedented intrusion into people’s lives across Australia and it should be rejected.