Opposition Leader Uses S-Word to Describe Labor Government’s Economic Policies

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has delivered a stinging criticism of the Labor government’s economic policies and accused it of experimenting with socialism.

Dutton launched salvos at the government’s net-zero policy, near-compulsory multi-employer bargaining laws, and superannuation changes, as well as questioning its commitment to the Stage Three individual tax cuts.

“In his meandering essay, Treasurer Chalmers wrote: ‘This is not just the beginnings of a new economic model, it is democratic reform.’ He wants to ‘build a better capitalism,’” Dutton told The Australian Financial Review Business Summit on March 8.

“Now, Australians can see through that double-speak,” he said. “This government wants to experiment with the same system of socialism which has devastated nations wherever and whenever it has been implemented.”

Net-Zero Policy Comes Under Attack

Dutton cited energy policy as an example of Labor’s interventionist government.

“Whenever and wherever governments have intervened in the market to lower energy prices, price fixing has failed. It failed in the U.S. in the 1970s. It certainly failed in Argentina in the 2000s. Unsurprisingly, it is failing here, too,” he said in reference to the decision to cap wholesale gas and coal prices in an effort to lower retail prices for families.

As part of this policy, the government is also providing compensation to energy firms that will lose millions because of the price caps.

Dutton said retailers were now struggling to secure supply from producers due to uncertainty in the market and that businesses were considering moving offshore to secure cheaper energy.

“Under Labor’s carbon tax 2.0—three times more than [former Labor Prime Minister] Julia Gillard’s—they will be forced to cut their emissions by up to five percent each year until 2030. By more than 30 per cent in total,” he said.

“There are some sectors within the 215 companies affected that will seriously consider whether there is a viable future for them in our country.”

In response to his address, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said Dutton was getting “more and more ridiculous every day.”

“We’ve finally found someone more negative than [former Liberal Prime Minister] Tony Abbott, more divisive than Scott Morrison, and more ridiculous with every passing day,” he told ABC Radio National on March 8.

“He is the poster child for the sort of politics. Australians rejected in May, and he seems to have learned nothing from that. These ridiculous scare campaigns and this hyperventilating hyperbole every day [shows Dutton has] learned nothing from the last wasted decade of needless conflict.”

Super Attack Continues

Meanwhile, Dutton also criticised the Labor government’s proposed changes to superannuation (retirement fund) that will see those with over $3 million (US$1.97 million) in their account taxed at a higher rate.

“The government is beating the drums of class war. Whether you’ve got $30,000 dollars, $300,000 dollars or $3 million in your super fund is not the point,” the opposition leader said.

“Hardworking Australians put their money into super—from savings, inheritance and windfalls—to support their retirement. They do so based on assurances on taxation stability.”

The current tax rate for income placed into a super account is 15 percent—meant to encourage Australians to invest in their retirement—yet the government’s proposed changes will raise that bar to 30 percent for additional funds over $3 million.

While politically popular in some quarters of society, the country’s professional association for accountants and financial planners said the move shifted the goalposts for people who had followed established rules.

“Investing in superannuation in this country is like trying to shoot a moving target flying in circles over shifting goal posts,” said Tony Negline, Chartered Accountants ANZ Superannuation and Financial Services leader, in a statement.

“The lead time is good as the changes will come into force after the next federal election, but it is still a major impact proposed on a small number of people who haven’t done anything wrong—they played by the rules and now the rules have changed.”