Let’s use a referendum to once and for all bring politicians and political parties in line with the rest of us. Who’s with me?!
Labor has been swept back to power and realistically is looking at another six years in power. It is unlikely that a Coalition could unseat them at the next election in three year’s time as the gap just seems too big.
So, Labor has a mandate now for extensive productivity and tax reform.
Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, did his PhD thesis on former Treasurer Paul Keating and his reforms, which have been the foundation of this economy’s success ever since.
This is the chance for Jim Chalmers to transition from a Paul Keating disciple to a Paul Keating 2.0 and introduce fundamental reform to rebuild the economic foundations for the next 30 years.
But those reforms have to be fair.
Playing the superannuation game
Take the plan to increase the tax paid on superannuation balances over $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. There is no doubt there was rorting of the system when former Treasurer, Peter Costello, allowed unlimited contributions to superannuation.
The wealthy warehoused millions of dollars of investments under the superannuation umbrella to reduce tax compared with what they’d pay if invested outside of superannuation. That means every other taxpayer is subsidising those tax concessions. I reckon a limit is fair.
But the plan to tax unrealised capital gains annually is just crazy. How can people expect to come up with the cash to pay each year when the asset hasn’t been sold? What about farmers who have their farm in their super fund? They will be unfairly penalised for making a living. Will capital losses be able to be claimed annually as well and the government pay cash into the super fund?
It is just really messy.
Two different set of rules
And then there is the question of fairness.
Federal politicians, former state premiers, ministers, governors, public service department heads, judges and magistrates are all EXEMPT from any of these proposed changes. Politicians and bureaucrats have extremely generous superannuation policies which would bump a huge number of them over $3 million.
For example, according to their public asset registers, 215 of the sitting 227 MPs and senators in the last Parliament held investment properties. Some have up to seven properties in their portfolio.
The Treasurer says it would need a referendum to change the constitution for any new superannuation rules to apply to this privileged group.
I say, bring on the referendum. Let’s vote. I’m sick of this … rules for all and then different rules for the elite.
It has to be a level playing field for everyone.
What I’m thinking …
A referendum is an expensive operation at about $400 million, but I think it’s worth it for ensuring fairness across the community so the elite privileged are treated the same as everyone else.
To make sure we’re getting value for the referendum spend, lets add another couple of questions to the vote. A suggestion from me:
Stop political parties accessing our private phone numbers during election campaigns.
Clive Palmer spammed millions of Australians with his Trumpet of Patriots SMS messages, which couldn’t be blocked. No other organisation is allowed to do this, but political parties are exempt from the privacy rules.
I say we vote to overrule the exemption of political advertising as breaching misleading and deceptive conduct rules. All advertisers must justify the claims they make in promotions, but not political parties. Why should they be exempt? Shouldn’t their claims have to be honest like everyone else’s?
Let’s use a referendum to once and for all bring politicians and political parties in line with the rest of us.
Why should they be treated any differently to any other organisation?
