House debates

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Bills

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017; Second Reading

5:18 pm

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

My friend from Moreton has spoken about what we heard a lot about leading up to the last election—a debt-and-deficit disaster. He spoke about the issue about budget emergency—a deficit that we see has not only blown out but the debt has crashed now past the half a trillion dollar mark under this government's watch. You can't make an argument for the Australian people, get a mandate to be in government—even though it's by one seat—on the basis that you're going to do something about addressing the budget emergency or this debt-and-deficit disaster. The thing that you want, most of all, in coming to government, is to give big business, multinational companies—including the four big banks that probably should be subject to a royal commission, given the fact that they presided over 50,000-odd instances of money laundering in the case of one bank alone—a $65 billion tax reduction.

From my perspective, I think this is going to lead to a structural deterioration in the budget over the medium-term. Certainly you've got to think about how, not in a plain economic sense, this is now being received in local communities—communities that, like mine, aren't rich; communities that do need family assistance; communities that do, regrettably, have high levels of unemployment; and communities that are trying to get their head above water, trying to use the TAFE or the education system to facilitate their job readiness. All those things have been impacted by this government's recent budget, and yet this is all being set aside, effectively, for a $65 billion tax break for big business.

When this was being prosecuted—and Madam Deputy Speaker, you'll recall the shenanigans that occur from time to time in question time—and you think about the questions that were asked in the lead-up to: 'How much is the government's giveaway to big business going to cost?', one answer that was given was $24 million. Another answer that was given—I think by the Prime Minister—was $26 billion. We got to $50 billion. Then it was back to $36.5 billion. Ultimately, the Treasurer had to concede that the real cost over the medium-term of the tax cut for big business would be $65.4 billion. I think we were a little surprised about that. And, no doubt, our colleagues on the other side of the House were probably similarly concerned because they probably didn't know what they were signing up to when they made all these grandiose plans at the last election. Similarly, colleagues from the other side used to tell me they didn't know what they were signing up to when John Howard brought Work Choices in—a piece of legislation that made it legal for the very first time in this country to pay workers below the award rate of pay. And colleagues from the other side thought that it was just the Labor team acting up and protecting trade unions, and they never believed what we were saying until the legislation was enacted. John Howard, the then-Prime Minister, had control of both the House and the Senate, and enacted the legislation.

Comments

No comments