Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

The assistant minister claims that Labor raises most of its revenue from small businesses and retirees, but it's obvious that he's not aware of the plans that Labor has to ensure that the budget is in a better fiscal position than that managed by the government. The fundamental difference between Labor's approach to managing the budget and that of the government is that we're not offering an $80 billion tax handout to the big end of town. We're not offering a massive multinational tax cut to the likes of Australia's biggest businesses, including, I might add, Australia's big four banks—and don't we all know how wonderful those big four banks have been in Australia over the course of the last decade, how they've looked after their customers, how they've put their customers first on every occasion when it comes to the management of their businesses, and how they deserve a tax cut because they've worked so hard on behalf of the people of Australia! We all know that is a complete lie, because the evidence that's coming out of the royal commission at the moment completely uncovers just how unjust, sneaky and underhanded the banks have been in this country over the course of the last decade and how millions of Australians have been brought into schemes that weren't in their best interests and have lost money—in many cases millions of dollars and life savings—because of the actions of the banks. For 600 days Labor argued that we should hold a royal commission, and it was the Turnbull government that opposed that argument for a royal commission.

Because we're taking tough decisions around capital gains tax and negative gearing, because we are tackling the cash handouts that exist for self-managed super funds around dividend imputation cash payments—the most generous in the world; no other country provides a cash refund when you have no income and pay no tax. You know what? We'll give you $2½ million. There you go: you might not have any income or tax, but there's a $2½ million handout from the government. They want to come in here and talk about being irresponsible with the management of the budget. It's because Labor has taken those tough decisions that we're able to be in a position where we will pay down more debt and bring the budget back into surplus, but we won't cut funding for health or education, we'll continue to invest in our TAFE colleges and ensure that people can get a good education and, importantly, we'll tackle climate change.

In terms of the budget papers the government released the Black Economy Taskforce report parallel to this budget, which contains recommendations to target various activities used to avoid tax. One of those was the announcement in the 2018-19 budget about combating illicit tobacco. The government still hasn't been able to explain why the revenue in 2019-20 is $3.2 billion while the following years are less than 10 per cent of that figure. In other words, why is the revenue so front-loaded—$3.2 billion and then dropping to 10 per cent in the forward years? We know that, when you do increase tobacco excise, there is an effect on smoking but not to the extent that there is a 90 per cent reduction in one year.

Perhaps more curious is the point that was raised by UNSW Professor of Economics Richard Holden. Mr Holden noted in the budget analysis that taxing tobacco 12 weeks earlier upon entry into Australia rather than presently when it leaves the warehouse will boost tax receipts once and once only. I think most reasonable people would characterise the majority of the revenue as an accounting change. It's an accounting trick by this government to look like we're moving into a surplus earlier than we would otherwise.

What would be the incentive for such a trick? Let's have a look at budget paper No. 1—it's all revealed there where, amazingly, the government has projected a $2.2 billion surplus in the underlying cash balance. Deidre Chambers would be proud! What a coincidence that they happened to move this revenue all into the first year to ensure that that particular year's revenue is bolstered and they get to a surplus. My question to the minister is: would the 2019-20 budget be in projected surplus without the 12-week change in collecting tobacco excise?

See this speech in context