Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

They had the chance. We gave them the chance. We brought it on in the House and we said, 'You're prepared to stand up for shotguns, you're prepared to cross the floor so it is easier to import shotguns into Australia, why don't you cross the floor so it is easier for farmers and horticulturalists to get the workers they need to do their job?' But, no, they do not have the courage to do that. They did not have the courage to cross the floor. They voted for 19 per cent.

So when we say that it would have been 19 per cent if not for the actions of the Labor Party, those opposite have no defence because the Hansard does not lie, as the Deputy Prime Minister well knows—the Hansard does not lie. The Hansard will show all those members opposite saying they think the appropriate tax rate is 19 per cent. The Labor Party and the crossbench in this House and the crossbench in the Senate have delivered the result which means we have a tax rate lower than 19 per cent. Well, that is a start; that is a step. But it would have been better if the tax rate had been 10½ per cent. Why? Because it would make Australia competitive with New Zealand.

We suspect there will be continuing problems with a tax rate of 15 per cent and honourable members opposite will have to go and explain to their farmers and their tourism operators why they are insisting on a situation which makes it harder to attract backpackers to work in Australia. As we have said before, what honourable members opposite seem to fail to realise is it is not just about workers, important as that is. As the member for Bendigo well knows, when backpackers work in an area, they spend the money in the area; they are not great savers. Backpackers do not have a great reputation as frugal operators, as people who build their wealth; they spend their money. If they are working in Bendigo, they spend it in Bendigo. If they are working in Cairns, they spend it in Cairns. That was the feedback that was given to us as we engaged in our consultations around Australia—something that those opposite seem to fail to understand.

As I said before, the Liberal Party are meant to understand business, the National Party are meant to understand regional Australia and they have both shown through this farce that they understand neither. The Liberal Party do not understand business, certainly not tourism, hospitality, agriculture and horticulture; and the National Party are just out to lunch. On this issue, the National Party have been about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike! They have sat and they have watched this Treasurer get it wrong time and time again. The member for Hunter, in terms of his responsibilities, has been consulting with the sector. He has been much more in touch with the concerns of horticulture and agriculture than has been the National Party and the Liberal Party on these issues.

We know that the National Party and the Liberal Party have engaged in a lack of consultation. We know that there was no consultation with the sector, certainly not on 32½ and not on 19 because the Deputy Prime Minister went out and said that he was outraged when we announced we were not voting for 19. He said, 'But it's part of a negotiated settlement.' The only trouble was nobody else was there, only the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated this settlement. It is not one that the sector was consulted on; it was not one that the opposition was consulted on. We have shown that we are prepared to work with the government where sensible outcomes can be reached. We know that what we have has been a rolling farce.

I saw the president of the National Farmers Federation this morning—who, as the member for Hunter has made clear, has the support and respect of this side of the House—and she said, 'We were absolutely blindsided by an item in the budget that came in that we weren't consulted about that said that they were going to put the backpacker tax up to 32½ per cent from nought per cent.' And that is the point; it was from nothing. I have seen the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance trying to argue that it was actually a tax reduction from 32½ per cent down to 19 per cent, when in fact it was nought.

But that is not the limit on this government's dishonesty when it comes to the backpacker tax. The dishonesty has continued and it has been perpetrated by the Treasurer, who has argued—as has the Prime Minister—that the Labor Party's position is that backpackers should pay zero tax. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer keep saying that somehow or other the Labor Party's position is that backpackers should pay no tax. I understand that there can be argument about interpretation of what people say in this House. As you well know, Mr Speaker, I might put a certain connotation on what I say and honourable members opposite might try to put a different connotation on it—and that is all fair game. We all look at our respective comments and we all interpret them as we see fit, but what you cannot do is make it up.

When the government says that the Labor Party's position is a zero tax, it ignores the inconvenient little fact that our position is actually 10½ per cent. I know that 10½ per cent has a zero in it—I accept that there is a zero in the 10—but it does not mean zero. It is a figure greater than zero. It is less than 15 and less than 19 but it is greater than zero. We actually support a tax on backpackers, because the vast majority of backpackers do not pass the tax-free threshold and therefore pay no tax under current arrangements when they are working in Australia, and they should make a contribution. We accept that, but what we do not accept is that that contribution should be so high as to make it uncompetitive and so high as to make it harder for horticulturalists to get the workers that they need, which therefore has strong flow-through effects to regional areas.

The other great mistruth that the other side has sought to tell—and I am sure honourable members opposite will tell this mistruth in this debate until we all get gagged in this government's incompetence—is that somehow or other the Labor Party's position sees backpackers paying less tax than Australian workers, and that is just not true. Under these arrangements and under the Labor Party's amendments, backpackers pay tax on the first dollar earned and every dollar subsequent—the first dollar earned. That does not apply to Australian workers. Australian workers do not pay tax until they pass the tax-free threshold. So any comparisons there must take that into account. It is utterly inappropriate for the government to perpetrate this untruth that there is a level at which an Australian worker would pay more tax than a backpacker. That is just an untruth. The government should stop telling those untruths. They should accept their utter incompetence on this matter and they should accept the will of the Senate, which has been 10½ per cent.

We understand that they have done a deal with other crossbenchers to get it through at 15 per cent. Well, good luck to them. The Labor Party will stick to 10½ per cent, and the Labor Party will vote for 10½ per cent. And, at the appropriate time, I will move amendments to reflect that, just as I will be moving a second reading amendment—which I hope that the government can support, based on the precedent of government supporting second reading amendments condemning them, when they know, and they have to face the reality, that they have got it so wrong.

The Labor Party will continue our consistent approach on this. Those opposite have gone from 32½ per cent to 19 per cent to 15 per cent. We will continue to argue that the tax should be 10½ per cent. Presumably they will win. Presumably, they have their done their homework finally and they have the numbers—although, they did not, as we saw just a few minutes ago, when trying to get a cognate debate through with no consultation, against the precedent of normal consultation with the opposition. When they presumably win, what they will find is that they will continue to have to answer to regional Australia as to why it is harder for horticulture, agriculture and tourism to get the backpackers they need.

Mr Speaker, on slight indulgence, and I will not belabour the point because it is a separate bill, we have also seen the rolling farce of the passenger movement charge, which will come before the House separately. That has been equal in incompetence—without foreshadowing what the member for Grayndler says in response to the passenger movement charge. We saw the Minister for Trade at the despatch box just a few weeks ago saying that increases in the passenger movement charge strangle the goose that lays the golden egg for tourism and are inappropriate. Obviously, he was not in the loop. The Treasurer and the finance minister had not told him that they were about to increase the passenger movement charge—a departure tax which is already the highest in the world at $55 and moving to $60. That compares to $23 in the United States, $17 in China, $19 in Mexico and between $21 and $43 in the United Kingdom for short-haul travel. It is higher in the United Kingdom for long-haul travel—I do acknowledge that—but that does not mean that Australia's passenger movement charge at $60 is competitive.

See this speech in context