Luke Howarth's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It was reflecting on me, abusing me, when there's no need to do that. You should just get on with the actual speech of the minister.
I rise to speak on the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. This bill is designed to ensure that Australian banks remain engaged in the Pacific financial sector, thereby preserving Australia's...
I rise to speak on the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025. This bill is designed to ensure that Australian banks remain engaged in the Pacific financial sector, thereby preserving Australia's strategic presence in a region where China's influence continues to grow. By maintaining essential banking services for trade and remittances, the objective of the bill is to prevent further isolation of Pacific nations from global financial systems and help safeguard regional prosperity. We all want to see a safer Pacific and strong, soft diplomacy ties to it. But clear oversight and transparency measures are needed, because the bill creates an ongoing risk to the taxpayer, with the potential for open-ended liabilities if claims on the guarantee arise. While the coalition will not oppose this bill, referring the legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee is crucial, as this will help identify any necessary amendments and ensure robust protections are in place for Australian taxpayers. The coalition's track record in the Pacific includes delivering record levels of aid, establishing diplomatic missions in every Pacific Islands Forum country and strengthening maritime security and labour mobility programs. In contrast, the Albanese government's approach appears reactive and has even been blindsided by China's growing presence in the region, highlighting the need for more proactive, long-term strategies. Balancing strategic objectives with fiscal prudence is vital, especially since the bill could expose taxpayers to geopolitical and commercial risk if not properly regulated. A robust national security stance underpins all Pacific engagement, and the coalition's record shows that only a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach can maintain Australia's leadership in the region. The Albanese government want to deflect the blame for their failures in the Pacific onto the coalition. This government just can't face its own failures. The fact is that, while contestability in the Indo-Pacific has been intensifying for some time, it is under this government's watch that China has been able to extend its influence in our region through a series of security, economic and other agreements with Pacific island nations—some of which, media has reported, have blindsided the government. This has happened while the government, with few exceptions, has not been able to finalise a raft of agreements it has sought with the Pacific island partners. What the Albanese government's record in the Pacific shows is that it is not up to the strategic challenge in the Indo-Pacific. The Albanese government is weak on national security, and only a Dutton Liberal-National government can ensure that Australia is a natural partner of choice for our Pacific family. The facts show that the coalition delivered record aid into the Pacific in our last budget: some $1.85 billion—$750 million more than in Labor's last budget, which only provided $1.1 billion. In 2021-22, total support to the Pacific, including loans, was $2.7 billion and included security programs, health and financial support. Under the coalition, Australia became the only country to have diplomatic missions in every Pacific Islands Forum country. The coalition doubled the lending capacity of the AIFFP from $1.5 billion to $3 billion, including climate-resilient infrastructure, for the assistant minister opposite, and clean energy projects like Palau Solar, the Tina River project, and off-grid solar in PNG. The coalition increased our Pacific climate finance to at least $700 million in 2020 to 2025. The coalition's $2 billion Pacific Maritime Security Program delivered 14 out of 21 Guardian class patrol boats, upgraded wharf infrastructure and supported aerial surveillance. The coalition took a whole-of-government approach to supporting our Pacific friends and partners by (1) training defence and security personnel from the Pacific—that's what the coalition did; (2) providing maritime safety security assistance; and (3) implementing a very successful labour mobility program, which Labor has diminished by bowing to its union masters. Those are facts. In government, the coalition provided-record levels of development assistance to the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We budgeted for an estimated $4.55 billion as official development assistance in 2022-23, up from an estimated $4.46 in 2021-22, an increase under the coalition in our term in government. This included an additional $460 million in official development assistance in 2022-23 for temporary and targeted measures, responding in particular to COVID-19—that global pandemic that those opposite may remember—such as $281 million to address the economic and social impacts of COVID-19 in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, $98.3 million for vaccines in the Pacific and South-East Asia, $61.5 million to support economic recovery in South-East Asia, $13.6 million for Pacific labour mobility and $5.7 million for an ASEAN comprehensive strategic partnership. We resumed indexation 2½ per cent on the baseline ODA budget in 2022-23, which will see the ODA budget increase over the forward estimates. Our ODA was complemented by a comprehensive package of support to the Indo-Pacific region. This included budget support—Indonesia's $1.5 billion, PNG's $1.14 billion, Fiji's $168.5 million—security assistance and vaccines. Nearly 33 million doses were delivered out of the 60 million committed by the end of 2022. So the Liberal-National coalition had a good record in the Pacific with our neighbouring friends and partners. In soft power and strategic diplomacy, we increased scholarships to the Pacific with nearly 69,660 Australian students through the New Colombo Plan, and we increased the number of students we sent to gain experience in the Pacific by over 60 per cent. Despite COVID-19 challenges, we resumed Australia's award scholarships in short courses to 27 developing countries with 2,075 granted in 2021-22, including 484 for Pacific scholars, with 4,429 Pacific scholars through Australia's award since 2015—PNG, Solomon Islands and Samoa as top participants. We contributed some $5.4 million over 2017 to 2022 to develop the next generation of women Pacific leaders through targeted workshops and network delivered intensive leadership and mentoring for 126 women from 10 Pacific countries connected with 141 Australian mentors and a range of Pacific leaders. Again, to close, referring this legislation to the Senate's Economics Legislation Committee is crucial, and the coalition looks forward to supporting that committee process.
Rearrangement | Business | House debates
I second the motion and I'll speak to it now. It's so important that this bill is dealt with right now, because, on 12 February, the Labor Party voted against their own bill, and, if we don't get...
I second the motion and I'll speak to it now. It's so important that this bill is dealt with right now, because, on 12 February, the Labor Party voted against their own bill, and, if we don't get this sorted today, there will be thousands of small businesses around the country that won't be able to write off assets that they've already purchased. In this financial year alone, there are people that might have gone out and put solar panels for renewable energy on their roof to reduce their electricity bills, which have doubled under this government—a 100 per cent increase for most businesses. There'll be cafes and so forth that have bought new equipment—it might be a brand-new coffee machine—that they're expecting to be able to depreciate this year, but they won't be able to. It will have to be depreciated over years, because this government hasn't sorted it out. They've come to parliament today—and there's a little bit of hypocrisy here—wanting to put through tax cuts that are worth five bucks a week and that aren't due until 15 months from now, but they won't deal with the instant asset tax write-off when we've literally got two months to go with it. This is why it's so urgent, and the Leader of the House should know that, on 12 February, they voted against their own bill. There are others—it might be carpenters or pest controllers or plumbers—who may have found a vehicle under 20 grand or new IT equipment that they bought in the last eight, nine or 10 months. If the government doesn't support the opposition's motion today and actually vote today on their own bill for the instant asset tax write-off, then those businesses will get to the end of the financial year, and it won't be there. It will be up to a new government, after the election, to put it through and make it retrospective. In the budget last night, the ongoing instant asset tax write-off was killed completely. For the people of Moreton, there'll be no more instant asset tax write-off after you've gone, Graham. It'll be back to $1,000—it wasn't extended in the budget last night. What we're talking about right now is the instant asset tax write-off from last year's budget that still hasn't been legislated through the House and Senate. The Treasurer doesn't even know what's going on because he said at the Press Club today, 'It's been held up in the Senate.' It hasn't even been to the Senate! It's still being held up here; you voted against it on 12 February. The Treasurer doesn't even know what is happening with their own legislation in relation to small and family businesses and sole traders. There are all these people out there whose electricity bills have doubled in the past three years under this government, and what do they put in the budget? One hundred and fifty dollars! The instant asset tax write-off is important for the thousands of people who work in small and family businesses, for all the assets that they've bought to date. It could be a whole range of other things. It could be recycled timber that they've put into an office fit-out that cabinetmakers have put in, where it's come under that $20,000. Unless the government gets the bill through the House and the Senate today, they won't get it. They will have spent that money, and it will have to be depreciated over years and years. So I hope the Leader of the House is going to get it through and vote on their own legislation, unlike what they did on 12 February. That will be a win for small businesses, and we'll be happy.
Albanese Government | Statements by Members | House debates
It's a great honour to represent the people of Petrie. Every term, I try to achieve as much as I can for the electorate, but the last three years under the Albanese government have been a bit...
It's a great honour to represent the people of Petrie. Every term, I try to achieve as much as I can for the electorate, but the last three years under the Albanese government have been a bit dry. There were no election promises delivered from the government since the last election—absolutely nothing from the Prime Minister. When you look at what the government promised before the election and what they've delivered, it's all bad. What happened to the $275 power bill reduction? What happened to the $275, Prime Minister? Not there. What happened to cheaper rents? Nothing. They haven't been delivered. What happened to cheaper mortgages? We have had 12 interest rate rises, and all the rents and mortgages have gone up. What the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others said before the election—diddly squat, nothing happening. What happened to stage 3 tax cuts—'My word is my bond'? 'We're going to keep them. We're going to kill bracket creep. My word is my bond,' from the Treasurer. But then, not anymore—my word means nothing. So the reality is, with the election in just a couple of months—due in May—when the Albanese government open their mouths, when ministers open their mouths and when the Prime Minister opens his mouth, their word cannot be trusted. You cannot believe a word this frontbench says because they have not delivered for Australians and they certainly haven't delivered for the people of Petrie. The LNP will, if given the opportunity.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It would be disastrous for Australia, as the member for Mallee says. I've got to shoot off that warning because the Prime Minister and his government must take responsibility for the economic...
It would be disastrous for Australia, as the member for Mallee says. I've got to shoot off that warning because the Prime Minister and his government must take responsibility for the economic damage that they have caused in the last three years. The coalition is not in government; they are. If you can't trust the leader of the country when he makes promises about lowering electricity prices, not changing stage 3 tax cuts or not putting additional taxes on superannuation that are not indexed, so that people in their early 20s are going to be impacted by the decisions of the Albanese government when they're at retirement age, then how can you trust anyone? It's no wonder that Australians get a little bit cynical about politics when people—and particularly the leader of the country—say one thing before an election and then something after. Above all, they must present a real plan: one that delivers genuine relief and restores the economic stability that Australians deserve. Until that happens, the coalition will continue to stand with the Australian people, holding this government to account and fighting for a better, more prosperous future for all Australians.
I rise to speak on the additional appropriation bills for 2024-2025: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-25 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill...
I rise to speak on the additional appropriation bills for 2024-2025: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-25 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025. These bills provide the necessary appropriations to ensure the continued delivery of essential government services and to fund decisions made since the 2024-25 budget was announced in May last year. In total, these bills appropriate approximately $12 billion for the remainder of the financial year, the majority of which, some $7 billion, is directed towards the ordinary annual services of government. The opposition supports this legislation to ensure the smooth operation of government and the uninterrupted provision of services that the Australian people rely on. However, while we support these bills as a matter of necessity, we must also use this opportunity to highlight the grave economic mismanagement that has led us to this point and put Australians under so much cost-of-living pressure. These bills, like the budget bills before them, were introduced in the context of a budget and MYEFO update that yet again expose the Albanese Labor government's utter failure to tackle its cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese government cannot manage the economy. That is why we have seen inflation far too high for far too long. They cannot manage the budget. That is why we have seen $347 billion in additional spending that has fuelled inflation and kept rents, mortgages and the cost-of-living high for the people who we represent. The evidence of the Albanese Labor government's failures has been mounting since they were elected back in May 2022. What do they have to show for their additional $347 billion in expenditure? What do they really have to show apart from higher prices, higher interest rates, higher rents, more small businesses collapsing—some 27,000—and lower living standards. In fact, they are saying that living standards have dropped so far under this government that it wouldn't be until the year 2030 that living standards would recover to where they were under the former coalition government. Under the Albanese government's economic mismanagement, we are witnessing the longest sustained period of inflation since the 1980s. Interest rates have been hiked 12 times under this government alone compared to once in nine years under the former coalition government. Energy bills have risen by an average of $1,000 per household, in stark contrast to what was promised by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer prior to the last election when they said energy bills would fall by $275. They've actually risen by $1,000 per household. For businesses, the story is worse. Often, there have been 100 per cent increases. Living standards have collapsed. As I said before, businesses have gone insolvent. We are in a sustained household recession with negligible productive growth. Productivity has fallen through the floor. So for all the people that I represent, the people in Petrie, when they buy a product or get something done, what they're buying is a lot less than what it was just three years ago. That is because productivity has also collapsed. What is the government's response to all of this? When we come into question time each day and when we hear the ministers in the media, what is their response? It's denial and indifference. The Prime Minister says to Australians, like he did in 2022: 'Trust me. You'll be better off under Labor.' Their coalition partners in the Senate, the Greens party, are also responsible for this. After 2½ years, or almost three years, now, Australians know better. Let's look at the real impact of Labor's failures on everyday Australians. The employee living cost index, an index measuring the true cost of living for hardworking Australian families, has surged by 19.4 per cent since the government took office. That is a huge jump, far outstripping any sort of wage growth or anything the government has done to try and help this situation. It's surged almost 20 per cent. That's almost 50 per cent higher than the consumer price index over the same period. We have seen a 66 per cent increase in the number of people seeking assistance with their energy bills—just to keep the lights on at home, just to keep the wi-fi going at home. You want to relax after a big day's work and watch a bit of Netflix. We have seen people seeking assistance with energy bills, and that's not what was promised prior to the last election, when they said: 'Renewables are cheap. We're going to be a renewable energy superpower.' Have you heard that expression before from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, that we're going to be a renewable energy superpower? What's it done? It's made household bills go up by $1,000 by ensuring that all new energy is just coming from Chinese-made solar farms and wind farms. That is not working; it's not the solution. And they won't even put a cost on the additional transmission lines, the some 27,000 new lines that have been dug up through national parks and over sand dunes without, really, I think, much of an environmental impact study, because: 'It's renewables. We've just got to do it.' Bang—pop it in. The coalition has other solutions, which the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow minister for climate change and energy, Ted O'Brien, have spelt out in relation to gas, renewables and emissions-free, modern nuclear power that can be dropped in at seven locations where we currently have those transmission lines. So we can go emissions free under our policy without destroying sand dunes and national parks and running 27,000 kilometres of new poles and wires through rural and agricultural land. At the end of the day, when you focus on Australians and what's best for them, not what's ideological about the policy, Australians are better off. When you govern just for union donors or when you govern for a small amount of people, then what happens is the policies go wrong and most Australians cop it through higher cost of living. It's the same with the Greens; they're no different. When they say, 'Let's tax billionaires,' it all sounds good—tax millionaires, tax billionaires and everything else. But what Australians don't understand is that the students that are at university and the people that are perhaps on some sort of welfare assistance—when you tax those businesses, which are often the vehicle through which people have made their wealth through entrepreneurial activities, all of those costs of higher taxes. You see the Greens running around with 'Tax billionaires' shirts. Those higher taxes are passed on to the consumers that we represent in Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. That is the absolute reality. So it's easy for a protest party of government, like the Greens, which is not a government party, to come in and say, 'Free this, free that, free dental, free HECS, free TAFE'—whatever it might be, someone is paying for it all, and they're paying for it through higher taxes, which is how the Australian government gets its money. They don't have a money tree out the back; the Treasurer doesn't have a money tree out the back of his parliamentary office that he just plucks the billions of dollars from to bring down the budget every May, right? It comes from taxes levied on the Australian people, and what we see, every day in this place, are more and more bills coming through to find new ways to tax people. Yesterday, we had the member for Kooyong—and don't believe me, go to the Hansard and look at what she said. She wants to tax every person in Australia that currently claims a tax deduction on a ute. She wants to tax them. That's what she said. She basically said: 'There are three million utes in Australia and only two million businesses, to round it up. Therefore, one million people must be rorting the system because they're not apprentices.' I said to the member for Kooyong, who's a teal—she says she's Independent but votes with the Greens 80 per cent of the time—that there are more people than just qualified tradespeople that use utes. What she, and others in this place, fail to understand is that farmers, for example, are not tradespeople. But guess what? They deliver food to Bendigo, to Kooyong and to Petrie, and right around the country. They use utes, and they can claim a legitimate tax deduction, as to fringe benefits tax, or on some sort of LandCruiser ute that's probably over the luxury car tax threshold—and rightly so; so they should. This is what happens when you get elites that earn a lot of money coming in here and saying, 'Oh, we just need to tax people more.' But who cops it? The farmers cop it. Let's say you were to take the advice of the member for Kooyong, who has written to the Treasurer saying that that tax exemption for utes should be removed. Let's say he takes that advice and the cost of utes goes up. What does that do to the price of apples, lamb or tomatoes, or pest control, or any other service where small-business people use a ute but they're not actually tradespeople? Take concreters, for example. People might want to put a driveway in for their house or a path from their back door to the clothesline. Concreters are not tradies; they haven't done a four-year apprenticeship. But they use utes as legitimate tools for their business. We need people to wake up a bit and explain how higher taxes are passed on to the people that we actually represent. Families are struggling to keep the lights on; there's no doubt about it. Mortgage holders are facing an additional $50,000 in repayments just to keep a roof over their heads. Small businesses are closing their doors at an alarming rate. This is the reality of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, and yet, despite all of the pain and suffering, the Prime Minister hasn't offered any comfort or solutions and has no plan to ease the burden on Australians. The cost-of-living crisis we face today is not a coincidence; it is a direct result of the government's economic incompetence. Australians are crying out for relief and are saying Labor has failed them. Instead of addressing these real and pressing issues, this government continues to ignore the struggles of hardworking families and small businesses. While we support these additional appropriation bills to ensure the continued functioning of government, we will not stand idly by while Labor's economic failures wreak havoc on Australian households. If you think it's bad now, just three months before the federal election is due, imagine what it would be like with a Labor-Greens-teal government in the next parliament, where you'd have members like the member for Kooyong and the member for Melbourne putting bills into this place with the Prime Minister. I can tell you now, it would be bad for Australia.
Cost of Living | Constituency Statements | House debates
It's a great honour to represent the people of Petrie here in federal parliament. There are some 130,000 voters, and, when you add children in as well, there are a lot of people in Moreton Bay...
It's a great honour to represent the people of Petrie here in federal parliament. There are some 130,000 voters, and, when you add children in as well, there are a lot of people in Moreton Bay and Brisbane city that I represent. What we've seen under the Albanese Labor government is an increase in the cost of living, and it really hurts me to see that people are struggling in my electorate and around the country as well. Things have gotten considerably worse in the last three years since the Albanese government came to power and the government changed. What we've seen, and how it's become more difficult for people of Petrie, is an increase in costs. Health is up 10 per cent, education's up 11 per cent, food is up 12 per cent, housing's up 14 per cent, rents are up 17 per cent—and acute homelessness is through the roof—insurance and financial services are up 18 per cent, gas is up 34 per cent and electricity is up 32 per cent. When you look at health, Labor talk a big game. I've said before that they continually say, 'Let's save Medicare.' The issue is that it's a complete joke. Under them, bulk-billing is lower. It's actually fallen by 11 percentage points in less than three years. The bulk-billing rate under the coalition government was 88 per cent; it's now down to 77 per cent. When it comes to education, education is also up 11 per cent despite the rhetoric that we get from those opposite about free TAFE. Free TAFE is not free; it's costing taxpayers an additional $1½ billion on top of what we already spend on VET funding. The issue is that Labor only support the sector where their union donors are. That's why they want to do free TAFE, because you've got more unionists in TAFE, as far as it's been in state education. The problem is that it's not getting the results that we need. Under our system, we were ensuring that we were boosting apprenticeship schemes and actually paying for 50 per cent of wages, but Labor don't want to support employers; they only want to support union membership. When you govern that way, you get bad results, and that's partly why we've got a housing crisis. Food's up 12 per cent. Labor did not extend the 22 per cent discount that the coalition had in place on fuel, so because of transport costs, we're seeing milk up 17 per cent, bread up 17 per cent and eggs up 17 per cent. And, when it comes to housing, there have been 12 interest rate rises under Anthony Albanese, and that's added $30,000 to mortgages, or $600 a week. Rents are also up 17 per cent, and that's why we're seeing acute homelessness growing under the Albanese government. Between the 2016 and 2021 censuses, the coalition reduced acute homelessness, reduced rough sleeping, reduced couch surfing and reduced severe overcrowding. Insurance is up after Labor's attacks on accountants and financial advisers. And electricity, the $275 promise, is out the door. In fact, it's gone up 30 per cent, and 100 per cent for businesses. We need to vote out Albanese.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1". (3) Schedule...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1". (3) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 15), omit the Schedule.
Petrie Electorate: Australia Day Awards | Statements by Members | House debates
On Australia Day we witnessed an extraordinary moment of recognition for some truly outstanding individuals within the electorate of Petrie. Today I have the privilege of sharing with you the...
On Australia Day we witnessed an extraordinary moment of recognition for some truly outstanding individuals within the electorate of Petrie. Today I have the privilege of sharing with you the remarkable achievements of those who were honoured with the prestigious Order of Australia medal and one meritorious award. In the Petrie electorate we're incredibly fortunate to have individuals who embody these qualities. These recipients represent the best of Australia—their selflessness, their commitment to service and their ability to make a difference having earned them this well-deserved national recognition. Mr Wesley Bleakley from Kippa-Ring received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to people with a disability. I've known Wesley for many years; this is thoroughly deserved. Mrs Teresa Bourke from Redcliffe received a Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to swimming and as a coach of people with a disability. Ms Wendy Paterson from Griffin received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to community health. Detective Sergeant Stuart Butler from Margate was awarded the Australian Police Medal. On behalf of the people of Petrie, I want to thank each of you for your dedication, your service and for what you do for Australia. Congratulations.
In relation to the amendments from the member for Warringah: as much as I think the instant asset tax write-off should be lifted much higher, the reality is that, leading into this election, we...
In relation to the amendments from the member for Warringah: as much as I think the instant asset tax write-off should be lifted much higher, the reality is that, leading into this election, we have to have all our costings put up front. We want to make sure our budget is better than the current government's, and that's why we decided to lift it to $30,000 and make it permanent. As a former small-business owner and a former contractor, and someone who worked in trades for 15 years, I understand the value of the instant asset tax write-off; I think a lot of the coalition do. In relation to the member for Kooyong, I've got no idea what she's talking about. An attack on tradies wanting to use utes? You've got to be kidding me! I used to run a pest control business and I had nine pest controllers, and every single one of them had a dual cab ute or an extra cab ute that they used for work. If they take their family off in that dual cab ute on the weekend, off to lunch or something—you want to reduce that; is that right? Is that what you want to do for the people of Kooyong and right around Australia? The ute is a genuine tax deduction, and I can guarantee you one thing: if I'm Assistant Treasurer we won't be getting rid of tax-free thresholds and any sort of deduction on utes, that is for sure. I challenge the member for Kooyong to go out and talk to the tradies in her electorate—or perhaps we'll get Amelia Hamer to go out and talk to the people in her electorate. It's an outrageous suggestion. It is a slur on everyone who drives a ute to say, 'This is some sort of tax dodge to have a ute.' It just shows how out of touch some of these members in this place are. That is definitely one of the worst amendments I've seen in 12 years in this place. That someone would stand up and say something like that is a slur on every tradie, every bricklayer, every builder and every person that works in the offices for those companies. It's wrong.
No, it does remove schedule 2 of the bill as well. So, it's removing schedule 2 of the bill in relation to striking out the general interest charge and the shortfall interest charge. Obviously we...
No, it does remove schedule 2 of the bill as well. So, it's removing schedule 2 of the bill in relation to striking out the general interest charge and the shortfall interest charge. Obviously we want small and medium businesses to pay, but they can receive that additional interest as tax deductions at the moment. The government is taking all that away, and we're saying that at this time, when there is high inflation, when 27,000 businesses have gone broke around Australia under this government, we think it is the wrong time to do that. So, it does remove that, and also the change to the instant asset tax write-off—just lifting it from 20 to 30 and making it permanent.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1 to government amendment (2) on sheet UG105 together. (1) Amendment (2), omit "$20,000 instant", substitute "Instant". (2)...
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1 to government amendment (2) on sheet UG105 together. (1) Amendment (2), omit "$20,000 instant", substitute "Instant". (2) Amendment (2), items 1 to 4, omit the items, substitute: 1 Section 328-180 (heading) Omit "to30 June 2024". 2 Subsection 328-180(1) (definition of increased access year ) Repeal the definition, substitute: increased access year: an income year is an increased access year if any day in the year occurs on or after 12 May 2015. 3 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d) Omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000". 4 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d) Omit "and on or before 30 June 2024" (wherever occurring). 5 Paragraph 328-180(5)(e) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) were a reference to $30,000, if the amount is so included at any time on or after 1 July 2023. 6 Paragraph 328-180(6)(e) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) were a reference to $30,000, in relation to a deduction for an income year than ends on or after 1 July 2023. My amendments will remove schedule 2 from the bill. It strikes at the government's attack on small business, which denies deductibility for the general interest charge and the shortfall interest charge. It will also amend the government amendment on the instant asset tax write-off. Removing deductibility of ATO interest charges on schedule 2 of this bill would deny deductions for ATO interest charges: the general interest charge and shortfall interest charge. We believe this is another attack on small business. We've seen some 27,000 small and medium businesses close in the last three years. This is another added burden to these businesses at a time when many of them are doing it quite tough. Small businesses at this time can least afford what the government is doing, and that is why I am moving these amendments to remove the schedule. The current arrangements, which allow for deductibility, take into account the uncertainty of the tax environment and that filed positions can be reviewed well after a tax return is lodged. The policy intent of these existing interest charges is to neutralise the loan benefit that a taxpayer gets due to the late payment of tax. The point of it is to put a taxpayer who is late paying tax in the same position as a taxpayer who has paid tax on time. But making these interest charges non-deductible goes beyond neutralising this loan benefit. It is effectively now an immediate penalty regardless of the debt levels or culpability of the late taxpayer. Denying these deductions is punitive. It risks exacerbating financial hardship for small businesses and their staff, who are already facing challenges, as I said before, such as high inflation, elevated interest rates and cash flow constraints. These businesses are facing record insolvencies, and, instead of tackling this issue, the government is hammering the small businesses again. The government's proposed schedule 4 of the bill continues Labor's attempts to decimate the instant asset tax write-off. As I've said before, the instant asset tax write-off was previously pretty well unlimited during COVID but has now wound down to $20,000 and is not even ongoing. It should be ongoing. It should be standard business procedure for any small and family business in Australia that the instant asset tax write-off becomes permanent—100 per cent. And $20,000—I mean, you can't buy a vehicle; there are very few items you can buy with $20,000. Labor's proposal would limit the instant asset write-off to that $20,000 and not make it permanent. The government has consistently been slow to provide certainty on the instant asset tax write-off, and this leaves small businesses in limbo and faced with uncertainty when they invest in their business. The coalition 100 per cent supports SMEs, and we're committed to lower, simpler, fairer taxes for Australia's 2.5 million small businesses. The coalition's position, as outlined in this year's budget-in-reply, is to extend the value of the assets eligible and to make this deduction permanent. I would love to lift it way higher. As far as I'm concerned it should be $150,000-plus for an instant asset tax write-off. But the additional spending of the government—some $350 billion plus on top of the last budget that Josh Frydenberg handed down—makes it difficult right now to lift it beyond $30,000. People will have to wait; hopefully a coalition government is elected very soon, under the leadership of Peter Dutton, and we will have to wait for the taxes to come in as businesses improve. As businesses get more confidence and we see more company tax come in and income taxes go up, that's when we'll be able to, at some stage in the future, hopefully lift it beyond $30,000. But, right now, $20,000 and not making it permanent is a disgrace, and it shows how little the Albanese Labor government regard small and family businesses. The coalition is serious about providing that lifeline, and I call on the government to support my amendment. It's not a big ask. As I said, we haven't made it $150,000, or unlimited, as it was previously; we've just lifted it from $20,000 to $30,000; it's not a big increase, and it's something the government should consider. You'd have bipartisan support to do that before the upcoming election.
Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I have a few final questions. This is the minister's bill, so I'm giving him plenty of opportunity to talk on it, and I appreciate what he's done. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the...
I have a few final questions. This is the minister's bill, so I'm giving him plenty of opportunity to talk on it, and I appreciate what he's done. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the significant civil penalties that apply in relation to the framework. Can the minister outline how the penalty regime will operate? What are tier 1 and tier 2 penalties? What are the maximum penalties? How will a civil penalty be determined using the various calculation methods? Does the minister think the maximum civil penalties are proportionate? Has the minister considered stakeholder recommendations that civil penalties only apply to serious or systematic breaches? What are the other consequences for a breach? What other enforcement tools are available to the ACCC? How will the Scams Prevention Framework and external dispute resolution interact with the existing ePayments Code rules in relation to unauthorised payments? Which code will have priority? What will the transitional period be for compliance and being subject to a civil penalty once a sector designation is made? Will there be a time limit for making a complaint to AFCA?
I have just a few more questions for the minister, and I thank him for his answers. Feedback from both industry and consumer advocates on the draft bill pointed to the complexity arising from the...
I have just a few more questions for the minister, and I thank him for his answers. Feedback from both industry and consumer advocates on the draft bill pointed to the complexity arising from the lack of clear liability rules and an apportionment mechanism for situations where multiple entities across different sectors are involved in a scam. How have these concerns been addressed in the final bill? Will AFCA have carte blanche to make decisions on apportionment of liability for each regulated entity? If regulated entities disagree with an apportionment decision, will they be able to litigate to overturn that decision? Do you anticipate these disputes will delay consumer redress? Have you estimated the potential costs and delays arising from litigation relating to these disputes, including for scam victims? In addition, I note that the Competition and Consumer Act, at section 51AE, already has a regulation-making power for the minister to prescribe enforceable mandatory codes to provide a set of rules or minimum standards for an industry, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. Was it open to the government to use this existing power to make codes without having to enact new primary legislation? Could using the existing code-making power have meant mandatory codes were developed and made earlier than the 31 months and counting of the Albanese government that we have been waiting for the Scams Prevention Code? If it was open to the minister, why did you choose to delay action on scams by coming up with a much more complex approach? This is an approach which has been criticised by most stakeholders, who have asked for this framework to be focused on the codes. Did you choose this approach so that you could draw this out and have another announcement? You have previously mentioned that you had difficulty getting legislation drafted. We are still waiting for these industry codes. When would we see these draft codes now? I do note you just addressed that—you're saying the department wouldn't start until this legislation was done—but how long would you expect the draft codes to take from here? I have some questions about concerns raised about the draft bill and how they've been addressed in this final bill. I make the point again that the government took a long time to come up with this and then ran a shortened three-week consultation period on the draft legislation. This bill was then turned around for introduction just four weeks later, with little of the consultation feedback incorporated as a result. It is important legislation that will impact all Australians. These aren't minor amendments that should be rammed through without scrutiny and without the bare minimum of consultation. Most regulated sector stakeholders, including the ABA and the Communications Alliance, have raised concerns about the double liability issues that arise as a result of the private right of action set out in section 58 of the bill. Given the whole-of-ecosystem external dispute resolution and the substantial civil penalties, is this additional private right of action necessary? Does the minister anticipate it will be useful or accessible for individual consumers? Many stakeholders, including the Customer Owned Banking Association, have raised concerns about the breadth of actual scam intelligence that might need to be reported and the regulatory burden that this would create. COBA have said: 'The sheer volume of data and information being contemplated by this definition means that what is expected from the obligations may not be reasonably achievable.' So have any changes been made to the final bill to address these concerns? If so, what are these? How will the burden of this data reporting be minimised?
I rise to speak in consideration in detail. The coalition supports the actions of the government when it comes to preventing scams. We feel that it is very important legislation, so I have some...
I rise to speak in consideration in detail. The coalition supports the actions of the government when it comes to preventing scams. We feel that it is very important legislation, so I have some questions for the minister regarding the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024. I know that this is an important bill for the minister, and I want to acknowledge the work that the minister and his staff have done. With his recent announcement about finishing up at the next election, I would—through you, Mr Speaker—just say to the minister: well done; we wish you well, and thank you for the work that you've done for Australians. We'll give you more time to speak on this, because we know that you love it and that you want lots of questions, so we've got a fair few questions to ask you. There are some concerns that have been raised about whether the bill will achieve its objectives for consumers. It has been described by some as a bit rushed, complex and unclear, and stacked against consumers. Through you, Mr Speaker: Minister, this framework relies heavily on leaving matters to be determined in future delegated legislation, which has not been made available or consulted upon alongside this bill. These include sector designation instruments, mandatory sector codes and other operational rules and guidelines. First, given that significant matters, including the prescriptive obligations in the codes, will be in this delegated legislation, why has it not been made publicly available alongside the bill? Second, have these instruments been developed or drafted already? Third, if not, why has this work, which is the substance and scope of the framework, not been done after 31 months of the Albanese government? Fourth, is this work being actively progressed by your department, and when will it be consulted on? I note that this policy work can be progressed and consulted on before the bill passes. Fifth, why are stakeholders and the parliament being expected to pass the bill through this enabling legislation when so much of the detail is not yet available? They're the initial questions. I also have some questions on regulation. The regulation impact analysis for this bill, which was tabled as part of the explanatory memorandum, uses costing assumptions that appear to significantly understate the regulatory compliance costs. For example, it makes assumptions, including 1.1 full-time equivalent staff required for a major bank to uplift anti-scam activity and governments' improvements; a $40,000 initial technology investment required for a major bank to comply with the info-sharing and reporting obligations and $20,000 ongoing; a $40,000 initial investment in staff for a COBA member bank to administer anti-scam activity and governments' improvements and $10,000 ongoing; and a $100,000 initial investment for a major telco to uplift anti-scam activity in governments and $50,000 ongoing. Minister, you have said this framework will not be the bare minimum. Can you explain how that statement is compatible with the costing assumptions? Do you stand by the findings of the regulation impact analysis conducted? And has this regulation impact analysis been signed off as compliant by the Office of Impact Analysis? Minister, if you agree that the costings require correction, will you ask the department to do further consultation to get it right and then table a replacement explanatory memorandum?
Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Free TAFE Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Well, get onto him then. I'll wait for your order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Petrie is entitled to be heard in silence, please. Thank you. I'll get back to my experience. I did...
Well, get onto him then. I'll wait for your order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Petrie is entitled to be heard in silence, please. Thank you. I'll get back to my experience. I did hospitality training back when silver service—for those people that might have gone to restaurants back in the late eighties and early nineties—was a big thing. I trained at the Bracken Ridge TAFE, which is still operating today within my electorate of Petrie. That's where I did my first training, before I went on to a career in sales and so forth. I then did a Diploma of Business through TAFE because I always wanted to run my own business, like my father. I did that Diploma of Business up at the Caboolture TAFE, which no longer exists. It's outside my electorate; it's in Longman. I'm not sure what is there now. It was part of the North Point training, and I also finished it down in Bracken Ridge. I want to thank the lecturers that gave me that training. It was good. After a successful career in wholesale sales, I went on to run my own business in the pest control industry, and then I went to TAFE to do a certificate III as well, so I've had quite a bit of training within the TAFE system. I want to give a shout-out to the Redcliffe TAFE and the Bracken Ridge TAFE, within the electorate of Petrie, for the work those trainers do there. I also want to give a shout-out to the Australian Trade College North Brisbane, which has remarkable trade training at Scarborough, within my electorate. It's one of the few trade training colleges where you can go to school—in grades 10, 11 and 12—and actually do an apprenticeship while you're training, and they're getting some fantastic outcomes. The former Prime Minister visited that trade training centre before the last election and gave it some recognition, which it rightly deserves. Labor have been on the 'Save TAFE' and free-TAFE bandwagon for the best part of 20 years. As I said the other day, when I'm dead and buried in 100 years, they'll still be talking about saving TAFE, free TAFE, saving Medicare—these are the parrot lines that they roll out every election. Let me give you an example. The former Labor member Yvette D'Ath, who I defeated in 2013, slid into the state parliament at a by-election and, in 2015, went into that state election as the member for Redcliffe and said: 'We've got to save TAFE. We're saving TAFE.' That's what she went into that election on. Two years later, in 2017, she said: 'Good news: the Palaszczuk government has saved TAFE. We've saved it. It's been completely saved in Redcliffe.' But then, at the 2019 federal election, Corinne Mulholland, the candidate that ran against me—who's now sliding into the Senate ticket, I believe—came out and said, 'We've got to save TAFE.' Can you believe the rhetoric of the Labor party? The member behind me gets it. So we've got a state MP in Redcliffe, entirely within the federal seat of Petrie, who was a former federal member for Petrie, saying, 'We've got to save TAFE,' in 2015 and, in 2017, 'We've completely saved it. It's brilliant. Thank you to the Palaszczuk government.' And then a Labor candidate in 2019 that had a seven per cent swing against her at that election said, 'We must save TAFE, and only Bill Shorten and that will be able to do it.' This is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. If they were that serious about saving TAFE and making it free, what have they done in the last three years? We've seen a massive skills shortage. The reality is that more trade training and funding for apprenticeships was done under the last government than ever before. We had an entire scheme under the former coalition government called Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements, where we actually paid half the wages of every builder, plumber and carpenter in the country. That's the reality. At the moment, it's clear that we are in a cost-of-living crisis. It's clear that we don't have enough tradies, due to the 600,000 migrants that this government is bringing in each year. This picking and choosing is the big problem that we have with this government. Because TAFE is somehow in the public sector and has unionised jobs, their donors say, 'Well, you must support the public sector; you must support free TAFE.' The deputy leader of the Liberal Party is right in the sense that having something free doesn't mean you value it more. The reality is that people line up to go to university. If you look at the UQ or QUT campuses in Brisbane or even the USC campuses in the Leader of the Opposition's seat, you do pay to go to university. The government pays part of it, 80 per cent or so, roughly—depending on the course, it might be 40 to 60 per cent—and then the rest is HECS. There's no reason why TAFE, which is generally a cheaper course because it can go anywhere from six or 12 months to a maximum two years, couldn't have a small co-contribution like HECS does. If they were serious about giving everything for free, they would make the private sector free for VET as well. Those are the facts. The reality too is that, as Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services in the previous government, I know the previous governments were spending about 80 per cent of VET training on TAFE but only getting 20 per cent of the outcomes, and the private sector was getting 20 per cent of federal funding and delivering 80 per cent of the outcomes. Under the Albanese Labor government, do you know how many people are completing the free TAFE courses? The deputy leader is right when she says that people say that if it's free they don't value it. There's a 13 per cent completion rate for free TAFE. The ministers opposite get up and say, 'We need a bit longer, another 12 months, to see if it improves.' Well, let's say we triple it to 39 per cent. Do you still think that's acceptable with the amount of money? The reality is that this plan from Labor is a shambles, like most of what they have delivered over the last term of government. The coalition believe the VET sector is very important. I'm a product of it. It's very important. We encourage people to get into carpentry, building, plumbing, electrical and other trades, whether it's hairdressing—whatever it might be. We think that is very important. We will continue to make sure that VET is funded well, but we're not going to give all of the money to free TAFE. We'll also make sure that the private VET sector receives funding as well, and that's very important. The government has a problem with anything to do with the private sector, because it's not just TAFE and those private VET providers. If you look at the Leader of the House, when he was in charge of workplace relations one of the things he did was destroy the NESM, the new employment service model, for people wanting to help train people on the dole—JobSeeker, as it's called—and that industry is completely struggling. He took away all the mutual obligations for people on JobSeeker to actually get some training and to enrol in different courses. He took away all of that. The government and many opposite have an ideologically opposed position to the private sector. That is what we're seeing here with the bill, and that is why we are opposed to the it; 80 per cent of the jobs are in the private sector. Whilst a lot of trainers are very good, I have heard from builders and carpenters that some of the students that have just come out of TAFE haven't actually had good training. That's not at every TAFE but at some of them. And the private sector training, which this government will pretty well give very, very little to, is often better training. Like most of the government's policies, this only sounds good, but the devil is in the detail. It's $1½ billion of taxpayer money—it's your money, people in my electorate—for a 13 per cent completion rate through TAFE; a significant decrease in the number of apprenticeships; and no increase in total VET enrolments. That is important. The Prime Minister talks about a skills shortage, so how's that no increase going to help the country? They're doing free TAFE, absolutely ripping the guts out of the private VET sector, and there's no increase in total VET enrolments. This is an election ploy from a desperate government that has Australians in a cost-of-living crisis, with rents through the roof, mortgages through the roof and electricity prices up by 50 per cent—doubled for most businesses. Australians deserve choice, and free TAFE denies everyday Australians choice. When a student chooses a university degree, they also get to choose the university that suits them. Maybe they make a choice because of the lecturers or the reputation and location of the uni, but the important thing is that they have a choice. Free TAFE has robbed tens of thousands of Australians of that choice. The Albanese government has created a significant social disadvantage and entrenched marginalisation with free TAFE. Not everyone has easy access to a TAFE college, and many regional towns don't have a TAFE college at all. Free TAFE makes the cost of living and housing affordability worse. Free TAFE means fewer apprentices, fewer houses and more expensive trade services due to a lower supply of qualified tradespeople. The two largest costs when building are the wages to the workers and the materials. When we don't train enough apprentices, because this government ideologically opposes VET training in the private sector, the cost of available workers goes up, putting upward pressure on prices. The Albanese government has presided over the collapse of the skills and training college, not the former coalition government. As I said before, we had half the wages paid for every apprenticeship in the country. It's their government that has a 13 per cent completion rate. This destruction of the skills pipeline will only get worse year on year on year on year without diversifying and resourcing the skills supply system across the board. When we don't train enough apprentices in any given year, we have to train double the following year to make up the shortfall and to build the numbers required in the following year. The problem with free TAFE is that, unlike private RTOs, who are paid only on completion—private sector VET RTOs are paid only on completion—TAFE are paid regardless of whether they produce an outcome or not. That's how they want to spend your money. So this money we need this year to catch up is already spent. This delivers very poor value for Australia. This is a bad policy from a bad government and the coalition won't be supporting it.
I paid for TAFE, by the way—I say to the assistant minister, who is walking out the door. I actually paid for it—no problem at all—and I didn't come from a wealthy family or...
I paid for TAFE, by the way—I say to the assistant minister, who is walking out the door. I actually paid for it—no problem at all—and I didn't come from a wealthy family or anything like that. In fact, my father only went to grade 5. He finished school when he was 10, but he went on to own his first home in his 20s. So I say to those opposite: I think I am qualified to talk about TAFE. Generally, my experience there was good. I've got no problem with TAFE. What I have a problem with is the government picking and choosing winners and giving financial outcomes because of their union membership. Because TAFE is purely within the public sector, it tends to have more union membership. And to the minister opposite, who's seen a 14 per cent reduction in manufacturing—I don't know who the hell you think you are to talk and want to interject—a 14 per cent reduction—
I say to the Prime Minister as he's leaving the chamber: what about private VET training? Why is he not making private VET training free? If you are that concerned about VET training, make that...
I say to the Prime Minister as he's leaving the chamber: what about private VET training? Why is he not making private VET training free? If you are that concerned about VET training, make that free as well, Prime Minister. Rather than just choosing free TAFE, make private VET training free as well. The reality is that I, as one of 151 members in this House, am probably more qualified to talk about TAFE than anyone else here. That's because I've completed four courses through TAFE, from certificate I, certificate II and certificate III to diploma level. I've completed those all through TAFE. I would not suspect any other member to have done so. I don't support free TAFE. I think it is a bad policy. With the Free TAFE Bill 2024, what we're getting here from the Prime Minister and those opposite is them choosing one sector of VET training—a sector that they think benefits them, because of union membership. That's the reality. As I said before, my experience with TAFE when I first left school was doing a certificate in hospitality and training, back when silver service—
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Alright. I'll leave that one alone. Sorry about that, Deputy Speaker. But small businesses and other taxpayers are under financial distress because of this government. Recent research from...
Alright. I'll leave that one alone. Sorry about that, Deputy Speaker. But small businesses and other taxpayers are under financial distress because of this government. Recent research from CommBank found that more than half of Australian small and medium-sized businesses are feeling the stress of navigating the cost-of-living crisis, with 57 per cent of business owners reporting feeling stressed due to financial pressures. This is the harsh reality facing businesses under the Albanese government. The policy intent of these existing interest charges is to neutralise the loan benefit that a taxpayer gets due to the late payment of tax. The point of it is to put a taxpayer who is late paying tax in the same position as a taxpayer who has paid tax on time, but making these interest charges non-deductible goes beyond neutralising this loan benefit. It effectively now is an immediate penalty regardless of the debt levels of culpability of the late taxpayer. The interest charges are already calculated using an uplift to the 90-day bank bill rate. This uplift is seven per cent plus for the GIC, and this is to discourage the use of tax debts as a source of finance. Denying deductibility to every small business across Australia goes well beyond discouraging. It's punitive. It is a penalty. A revised tax assessment can occur for many reasons. These reasons can vary from honest mistake to uncertainty about a complex tax issue. On this point, the Corporate Tax Association has raised concerns that the proposed amendments may result in unintended behavioural consequences around how taxpayers and the ATO constructively engage to resolve long-running disputes. The association notes that Australian tax laws are complex and that in most instances a taxpayer would self-assess a position to comply with the law, and this would often include receiving advice from their accountants. Don't get me started on accountants and what the Assistant Treasurer has done to them in this last term. The current arrangements which allow for deductibility take into account the uncertainty of the tax environment and that filed positions can be reviewed well after a tax return is lodged. The Tax Institute has said that the availability of the deduction for the GIC and SIC has been integral to the tax system for an extended period, and this is a significant change for taxpayers to navigate. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has raised concerns that small businesses are already struggling with cash flow issues, higher energy bills, higher insurance bills, higher wages bills and less income because all Australians have got higher rents and higher mortgages, and they will be disproportionately affected. For these small businesses already struggling to make ends meet, they say this proposal will result in more complexity and a higher chance that the ATO's tax debt holdings may increase because businesses will continue to struggle to pay the higher cost of their outstanding liabilities. This comes as a recent study from MYOB found that one-third of small business owners cannot pay themselves due to cash flow challenges, and a quarter have resorted to using their personal savings to keep businesses running. The government's proposal will also require small businesses to consider and invest funds into a more sophisticated cash flow management strategy and will require them to spend more money on accountants and on advisers to assist with their financial and tax planning. This will cost small businesses more, family businesses more and medium-sized businesses more, and it compounds their struggles further, often resulting in higher prices, which adds to inflation and higher costs for all the people that we represent. The accounting professional bodies have been particularly critical of this measure. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Institute of Public Accountants, the National Tax and Accountants Association and the Self Managed Super Fund Association made a joint submission calling for schedule 2 to be removed from the bill entirely. Their submission found that it is unlikely that increasing the cost of SIC will impact an entity's ability to correctly self-assess their tax liability, and the current cost of the GIC means that many taxpayers already have a strong incentive to pay tax on time. It found that making this non-deductible will inappropriately increase compliance costs of honest taxpayers, and that there are already a wide range of targeted measures that the Australian Taxation Office can undertake to improve the collection of tax debt. The latest annual report indicates that such measures are beginning to make an impact. CPA Australia made a similar submission, urging the government to reconsider this proposal. CPA Australia say denying these deductions, 'will create undue financial hardship for small businesses and individuals', making the 'existing challenges in the current economic environment' worse. This is an indiscriminate measure that fails to address situations where taxpayers have historically done the right thing or, through no fault of their own, accrue these charges due to legitimate tax disputes, through administrative delays. In their explanatory memorandum, the government points to the ability for a taxpayer to apply for remission of an interest charge—that is, to ask for it to be waived. But stakeholders report that the measure comes at a time of long delays in the ATO service delivery and inconsistent outcomes on remission requests. Disputing decisions is already time-consuming and costly, and this will become costlier with the risks of non-deductibility if a remission request is denied. These delays from the ATO will now cost taxpayers even more. The government's decision to introduce this measure, despite widespread criticism, shows that the business community should have no confidence that the Albanese government can consult, and no confidence that the Albanese government listens. If the government were serious about achieving the policy objectives here, it would have at least listened to the sensitive, alternate policies put forward by stakeholders. These include: introducing more targeted measures that focus on high-debt accounts, rather than penalising all small- and family businesses—including those which are generally compliant; reducing the percentage rates for the GIC and SIC if deductions are to be denied, currently seven per cent—three per cent uplifts; maintaining deductibility of the GIC for a reasonable period, to provide time to secure financing; and retaining deductibility for the SIC as its adjustment-related charge not a late payment penalty; creating a transitional rule to prevent retrospective application—currently an amended assessment for the 2022 tax year could accrue SIC and become non-deductible. Aligning tax treatment for interest for tax overpayments make these non-assessable. This government is clearly blinded by the revenue that this measure brings in. It is a brazen cash grab. If this measure ultimately passes, I can assure the small- and family business communities that the coalition would urgently review its impact on small businesses, when in government and given that opportunity. Extending the period to retain a BAS refund, schedule 3, is something that the opposition does support of this bill. It extends the period with which the tax commissioner must notify a taxpayer of a decision to retain a refund from a BAS. It would extend from 14 days to 30 days this period, to allow the ATO more time to verify information. The purpose of extending this period is to combat fraud and to reduce the number of fraudulent refunds issued by giving the ATO more time to assess and verify potentially fraudulent BASs. This is particularly important after the proliferation of high-value, large-scale GST fraud promoted through social media in recent years. The ATO's Operation Protego has estimated that there were 57,000 individual participants in a major GST fraud which ran from April 2022 to June 2023, costing at least $2 billion. I do note the measure could raise concerns about delays to BAS refunds paid by the ATO and its impact on small business cash flow; however, this measure does address this issue in part by providing that interest is payable to an entity where there is a delay in a refund of more than 14 days and where there is ultimately no reduction in the refund. This will reduce the impact on compliant taxpayers affected by a longer mandatory notification period. In addition, the ATO should be judicious with its use of the extended period. It should also continue to develop its risk models and work with banks, law enforcement agencies and other organisations to share information and detect fraud. The government's proposed schedule 4 of this bill continues Labor's attempt to decimate the instant asset tax write-off and deprive 26,500 medium-sized businesses of access to accelerated depreciation. The Treasurer today, when talking about small business in question time, kept saying, 'We're already doing generous things for small business.' A $20,000 instant asset tax write-off is not generous. It's pathetic, quite frankly. When they came to government, the instant asset tax write-off was unlimited. That meant that a manufacturing business wanting to invest in a new machine that was worth $300,000 could buy that machine and write it off against profits that financial year. This mob, the Albanese government, think they're generous giving small business $20,000. Give me a break! Again, it goes to show that no-one on that frontbench really has run a small business with staff for an extended period of time. That's what it shows. Not only that; a lot of them don't even have workers anymore amongst their ranks. Basically, they come from a limited scope, when it comes to developing policy, which is detrimental to Australian manufacturers. This policy that they've got—what is it called? Manufacturing Australia or Future Made in Australia? It's not even now; it's the future made in Australia. Constituents are a wake-up to this stuff. I have never seen the Labor Party go to an election with so many flawed policies. On my estimate, they've already seen a 16 per cent drop in manufacturing since they've come to office. I know that, because Minister Husic gets up in question time and rabbits on. He says, 'Oh, we've got 950,000 manufacturing jobs.' Recently they said, 'We've got 860,000 manufacturing jobs.' During COVID, under the former coalition government, we had a million manufacturing jobs, so just do the maths. There were one million manufacturing jobs during COVID, under the former coalition government— and now the member for Solomon and others here have delivered 860,000 manufacturing jobs. So, when the people in Darwin go to vote, they need to know that they've seen a 14 per cent reduction in manufacturing under the Albanese government. And now, with the Future Made in Australia Bill, they want to con Australians like they did on infrastructure with the Bruce Highway, which also impacts people. The Prime Minister came up to Queensland and announced, 'We're going to fix the Bruce,' and then his finance minister said, 'Oh, that won't start for four years.' That's beyond not just this election; that's beyond the 2028 election. Do they really think Australians are stupid? This is their line-up: free TAFE and Future Made in Australia. Meanwhile, we've got a 13 per cent completion rate and we can't get any tradies because the government has completely abandoned the private VET sector, the vocational education and training sector. If it's a private sector business, they don't want to know anything about it, because they only want to support their union donors and TAFE has public sector employees, who are more likely to unionise. If I did that, I'd end up in jail. How the Labor Party has gotten away with this for decades is beyond me. I'm telling you: Australians are waking up to it because their mortgages are up, their rents are up, their electricity costs are up and their manufacturing jobs have dropped by 14 per cent. It's a disgrace. The Treasurer in the MPI today was absolutely right. We've never seen the Australian standard of living fall this much in one term ever. You can keep your $20,000 instant asset tax write-off because it's pretty well worthless. Whilst we'll support it, because it's better than nothing, you shouldn't be proud of it. Under your watch, we've had tens of thousands of small businesses close and now you want to give them a $20,000 instant asset write-off. You won't be able to buy any car for 20 grand let alone one of the electric ones you want, which have a tax-free threshold of over 90 grand. It just goes to show how out of touch the Albanese Labor government—their ministers and backbenchers—are. That is the reality. We will move an amendment to increase the instant asset tax write-off and to make it permanent, not just for 12 months. It gets worse: they're offering 20 grand and they want to do it for a year, not four years. They want to do free TAFE forever, but they can't even give small businesses a $20,000 instant asset tax write-off forever. They are giving them one year. That's it. That's all they want to do. Well, the coalition are friends of small business. Do you why? Because they employ people and they're hurting under you mob. So we will support the instant asset tax write-off and support the BAS refund, but I can tell you that this government is not doing Australians any favours. Australians listening know how much they're hurting. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are over 2½ million small businesses across the country. Millions of small and family businesses are impacted by Labor's bad decisions, including through the 100 per cent increase in electricity costs which we've seen with many small businesses. Labor has consistently been slow to provide certainty on the instant asset tax write-off, and it leaves small businesses in limbo and scrambling at the end of the financial year, going, 'What can I maybe get?' rather than planning, and facing uncertainty when they invest in their businesses. In contrast, the Liberal-National coalition's, the federal opposition's, position would simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses by cutting red tape, boosting investment in productive assets and lowering business costs and prices. Unlike the government's piecemeal approach, we would deliver substantive reform for the 98 per cent of Australian businesses who would benefit from the instant asset tax write-off being permanent. The coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes for Australia's 2½ million small businesses, which employ millions of Australians. Labor has opposed cutting the small business tax rate, opposed our instant asset tax write-off plan in the past and clawed back business tax incentives since coming into power. Australia's private sector growth has tanked under this government. Small businesses need a lifeline to drive investment and boost productivity. The coalition is serious in supporting my amendment. This is a government rushing to lock in a few more cash grabs through higher taxes before an election is called. This is an anti-business government which is doing the bare minimum for small businesses before time runs out when an election is called. Under this Albanese Labor government, the majority of jobs created are being funded by public spending. That is not sustainable and risks higher inflation. We've already seen an increase in homelessness. Rents are up by 20 per cent almost, and, for some people, there has been a $30,000 increase in interest repayments for mortgages. That's $600 a week. That's a lot of money. In this bill, the government is giving with one hand to small and family business and taking with the other. Labor inherited an economy with low unemployment, strong growth and government finances that were recovering, and they've wasted it. They've absolutely wasted it. Labor has lost control of inflation, lost control of the economy and lost sight of small businesses and families struggling under its cost-of-living crisis. I was on the Central Coast last Friday with Lucy Wicks, and we went to a small business up there. Do you know what the owner said? They said: 'I'm begging you to do all that is possible to win and form government at the next election. My livelihood depends on it. Businesses are doing it tough, and things are very stressful for me as a small-business owner. Costs have skyrocketed; margins are thinner; account customers are not paying—most are on 120 days—and we've got staff shortages. The ATO are bleep—I won't use the word—ruthless and have no empathy.' That's what a business owner in the electorate of Robertson, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, said. They said: 'Australia needs you. Australia needs Peter Dutton.'