Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition is deeply unhappy with the government's chaotic handling of this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. The bill was introduced last Wednesday, and the coalition sought to have the bill referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. That request was denied. Instead, the government sent it to the House Economics Committee. Then the House Economics Committee last Friday refused to hold an inquiry into the bill.

The government is now asking the parliament to consider an incredibly complex taxation bill with significant changes, with no committee consideration, and the bill was only introduced last week. There has been no community consultation. There has been no committee consultation. The bill has been drafted. We hear the government itself is amending the bill which it only introduced last week. The government thinks it is giving this parliament the chance to have an appropriate process for the deliberation of something so significant. Fair dinkum!

They wonder why their government is chaotic, and here is their taxation bill, and it is the largest taxation law amendment bill on record. It has 11 schedules dealing with a range of different taxation issues. The government introduced it a week ago and have prevented any consultation by any committee. Then the government cannot understand why they keep screwing up policies. This is exhibit A. We are trying to deal with this bill in good faith. We are trying to deal with all these taxation issues in good faith, because they go to revenue collection, and they go to stability in the economy. But this is not the way to run taxation policy. This is not the way to run the parliament: introducing a complicated taxation bill last week, refusing to hold any committee inquiry at all and now trying to rush it through on the eve of an election without consulting those people who are most affected. I thought the mining tax was a warning and then I thought the carbon tax was a warning. What is it with these guys? This is not the way to run a country, it is certainly not the way to run a parliament, and it is most definitely not the way to run a taxation system.

In particular, schedules 3, 4 and 5 of this bill deserve considerable additional scrutiny. We will be moving amendments to excise these schedules from the bill so that can happen. I will explain the impact of those schedules further down the track. Schedule 1 of this bill deals with the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure that sought to bring forward $8 billion of company tax revenue by requiring companies to pay income tax instalments monthly rather than quarterly. This is all about trying to get the surplus. Companies currently pay tax on a quarterly basis. The government said: 'Don't worry about the paperwork; don't worry about any of that. And we're going to make you all pay it monthly.' That brings forward money.

The government did not consult with the business community about this; this came out of left field. They did not ask anyone about the paperwork implications; they did not do any of that. They are doing this because they need to bring forward money to try and create a paper surplus. The first step, starting on 1 January 2014, is for companies with a turnover of a billion dollars or more to lodge monthly returns. A year later, 1 January 2015, it is companies with a turnover of $100 million or more. A year later, companies with a turnover of $20 million or more will have to lodge monthly rather than quarterly payments with the tax office. Have the government thought about the paperwork implications of this? A billion dollars is a significant turnover, and there is probably more of an issue of cash flow for a company with this turnover. Companies with an annual turnover of $100 million or more could be companies with 200 or 300 employees. It is not hard to get to $100 million in turnover for a company that operates in every state. But then companies with a turnover of $20 million or more have to lodge monthly returns.

I thought, 'Twenty million bucks, that's not necessarily a big company.' If you think about the local news agency, it has a big turnover but probably small margins. I am not saying they would have a $20 million turnover, but they have a big turnover because they have a lot of cash go through the tills. Pubs have a lot of turnover. There would be plenty of individual pubs with a turnover of $20 million.

See this speech in context