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

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes that:

(a)

Australia’s Future Tax System Review (the ‘Henry Review’) made a large number of recommendations in relation to the system of taxation;

(b)

the Government implemented very few of the recommendations;

(c)

the Government has so far not released any of the Treasury modelling or other relevant information and advice underlying the recommendations; and

(d)

release of that information would be in the best interests of the community by facilitating a fully informed public debate about the way forward for taxation reform;

(2)

orders the Government to release within five working days from the date of this motion, all of the relevant modelling, costings, working papers and supporting information underlying the ‘Henry Review’;

(3)

requires that, from the date of this motion, no existing papers, emails or other information relating to the ‘Henry Review’ may be destroyed; and

(4)

requires the Secretary of the Treasury to warrant to the House that all relevant documentation underlying the ‘Henry Review’ has been released.

I have submitted this motion to the House as part of the new paradigm, as the Prime Minister describes it, of openness and transparency. That is what we are seeking to achieve with this motion before the House. We are doing so to try to obtain publicly and openly all of the details relating to the review of Australia’s future tax system, chaired by Dr Ken Henry, Secretary to the Treasury. He led a team of at least five people from Treasury. The report took two years to compile. It cost taxpayers over $10 million. It reviewed 1,500 submissions from all walks of life around Australia, In so doing, the committee held hearings, had discussions in various parts of Australia and submitted to the government a report of over 1,300 pages, which made 138 recommendations. The government chose to accept 2½ of the recommendations. In October 2009 the Treasurer said:

We need fundamental tax reform in this country. The Henry review is the vehicle.

He also declared it the most comprehensive inquiry into our tax system in over 50 years. He also said that the report would provide the foundations for a long-term plan for reform. If that is the case then the government should release all of the costings, all of the assumptions, all of the background working papers, all of the information that will allow Australia to have an informed debate on taxation reform for the future. The opposition proposed this during the election. We said that, within a very short period of being elected into government, we would release all of the assumptions, all of the details, all of the working papers and so on relating to the Henry review of taxation.

And why did we do so? Because, if we are going to have a serious debate about tax reform in Australia—and, as the Treasurer said, this report is the foundation for that debate—then all of the members of this House, and all of the senators, and all of the people of Australia, deserve the opportunity to be properly informed in that debate. If the work has been done and has been funded by Australian taxpayers then the work must now be revealed to the Australian taxpayers.

In the beginning of this government’s term in 2007-08 it came forward with a kaleidoscope of different changes to the taxation system. It has been the case that the Labor Party in government has chosen to introduce new taxes but not to abolish taxes. I want to remind the House of the revenue raising initiatives, which include reducing the generosity of employee share schemes; removing concessions of fringe benefits taxes; reducing the depreciation benefits for computer software; reducing tax deductions for individuals; tightening the exemption for foreign employment income; introducing the alcopops levy—what a great idea that was; increasing the luxury car tax from 25 per cent to 33 per cent; raising the tobacco excise by 25 per cent; introducing version 1 and version 2—and I would imagine version 3—of the great big tax on mining; and foreshadowing the introduction of a new tax on carbon. And do you know what, Mr Speaker? It is the case that the Labor Party says it has a framework, but most of these initiatives are not even in that framework!

So let us see the details of the framework. Let us find out what the assumptions were for the mining tax. Let us find out what the assumptions were for the government’s choice in rejecting outright a recommendation of the Henry committee to look at new and fairer taxation levels of superannuation. The government chose instead to increase the contribution of the superannuation levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which was specifically rejected by the Henry review. If we are going to offer the Australian people a better policy, we need to know whether the Henry review’s policy is cost-neutral or whether it would actually cost the budget significant sums of money. Why did the government reject that particular recommendation for a fairer taxation system for superannuation in preference to increasing the levy, when, according to the Treasury, the Henry review’s own recommendation would raise a similar level of national savings as that of the softer option of increasing the superannuation levy?

From our perspective tax reform is something that must be about more than increasing taxes—you have to remove taxes. When we were in government and we introduced the GST, we delivered a new tax system. At that time we removed financial institutions duty and we removed a raft of taxes such as bed taxes, the insidious wholesale sales tax, with its different levels and different applications, stamp duty in a number of areas—which the states then did not deliver on, but we certainly removed stamp duty on the transfer of shares and marketable securities. We also completely changed the reporting mechanisms for individuals and for companies so that it was simplified to a BAS statement every quarter and we reduced the amount of numbers and identifiers in the taxation system from 12 to one. In doing so there was real reform.

We had high expectations with the Henry review that there would also be real reform, so we were as disappointed as the Australian people when many of the 138 recommendations, many of them contentious and many of them also applying to the states, were rejected by the government. They chose to be agnostic on others, and they accepted only 2½ of the recommendations—and, of course, those changed as well.

The government may claim that this work is confidential and should remain unreleased. It is not implemented policy. It is not even foreshadowed policy. It is a report to the government, a comprehensive report to the government. The government have not said they are going to proceed with any single additional recommendation in the report—not one. They have not ruled out congestion taxes, but they are going to proceed with a congestion tax. Let the sunlight come in. Let the Australian people know what the government were told about tax reform, and let the Australian people be properly informed in the lead-up to the tax summit next year. It may be the case that the opposition—and I am certainly confident this will be the case—will want to go to the tax summit with an alternative policy on taxation. But we need to know what the assumptions are. We need to identify what the workings of the Treasury are that are going to assist us in providing an alternative policy for that tax summit. We intend to be constructive. Taxation at this stage is less than half of the total budget. It should be more than half of the total budget revenue, but under Labor it is less than half of the budget. But it is an area of the budget that does not receive proper attention. We spend a lot of time debating levels and areas of expenditure, but we do not necessarily, in this place or elsewhere in Australia, properly debate revenue, how it is collected and what a fair taxation system should look like. Therefore, the more we are properly informed, the better the debate will be.

So I urge the House to support this motion. I really do want this motion passed in the near future. I want the House to debate this sort of thing. It cuts to the heart of what everyone has defined this new parliament as: a parliament of transparency, a parliament of accountability, a parliament of honesty. Well, here is an issue that the government cannot hide from. It is not government policy at this stage; it is a document received—and paid for by the taxpayers. Let us get on with transparency. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to this motion. We are in a new paradigm hopefully of openness but I would say also that I hope we are in a paradigm of trust of some of our public servants. I apologise to the shadow Treasurer if I misinterpret his motion to the House, but it seems to me that the implication inside this motion is that the panel putting together this report has not published all the relevant information as they see it.

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

As they see it.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet, as they see it; of course as they see it. Their role as that panel was to produce a report including the relevant information as they see it. We all might have different views, we all might want to see draft 2 and compare it with draft 3 and decide which one is better. But their job was to come up with the report and I believe we are in a world where our Public Service has served us well. The five people on this panel have incredibly high reputations and credentials and I believe that we owe it to them to trust that they did their work to the best of their ability. The idea that they might now be deleting emails because of this review is not particularly pleasant. I am sure that is not what was intended in the motion but when I read it when you ask that from this date of motion no existing papers, emails or other information relating to the Henry review may be destroyed it implies that that action may actually be taking place. Again I think we need to give these incredibly committed and skilled public servants the trust and the credit that is due to them, and also recognise the quality of their work.

I would like to point out too what the report actually is not. I am going to refer to it as the Henry review because we all do. I know it is called Australia’s future tax system but I will shorten it to Henry review. It is not a comprehensive list of recommendations that are ready to roll. It is part of a comprehensive ongoing review of the taxation system, part of a process that will take a considerable amount of time. The report makes absolutely clear that the AFTS panel did not seek to provide detailed policy options ready for implementation off the shelf. Rather, they aim to provide broad directions for reform. The AFTS report contains indicative fiscal impacts of some of its key policies and economic modelling of the impacts of its overall vision. But given that their recommendations were not designed to be detailed, implementation ready policies, the broad indicative costings that they included are also not designed to be budget ready—they are just not designed to be that.

The report also notes that there are not a set of budget costings for firm policy options. The report states that the estimates are indicative and not comparable to conventional budget estimates, they include recommendations that might not be implemented for many years, they exclude the fiscal implications of phasing-in some recommendations and not all recommendations have been costed. This is a broad-ranging report that includes in it as many questions in its recommendations as it does answers. Again I would hope that we would allow our Public Service and some of the extraordinary people that we engaged to do this work for us the opportunity in their process to explore things that they later reject. I would hope that we allow them to do that. We get a better answer if we actually allow people to engage some investigations quietly and privately to explore options. We get a better answer if we do that. If we actually forced every person that we engaged to release every beginning of a thought without its conclusion, we would be significantly hamstringing our public sector from doing its work.

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

They made the recommendations.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see from the response that you do not agree with me. Perhaps we just have different ways of exploring questions and answers. I actually think, quite seriously, that sometimes we rush to answers too quickly and we should leave questions open for quite considerable amounts of time. Sometimes by doing that options come up that allow many people to be satisfied. Rushing to answers sometimes excludes options that may actually have worked out. I would hope that we are mature enough as a community and as a parliament to allow that flexibility and that creativity in our Public Service. I really hope that we are.

There is also an implication in the motion that the government has not released the modelling and costing as relevant. It claims that the government has not released any of the Treasury modelling or other relevant information and advice underlying the recommendations of the review. This is obviously incorrect. We have published the entire AFTS report, which is over 1,000 pages, as you have said. The final report contains discussion of different directions for policy reform, analysis of options for reform, Treasury modelling of options for reform and high-level indicative revenue impacts. The thousand final pages is the AFTS panel’s view, which is what they were asked to provide. It includes the Treasury modelling and any other information that the panel thought was relevant to considering their recommendations.

But we have published more than that. As part of the review we also published a number of other documents that provide further description, discussion, analysis and modelling. They include 344 pages on the architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system, the 290-page AFTS consultation paper and the 71-page report on the retirement income system. We held conference with leading experts from around the world as part of that and released 11 conference papers. These documents provide a guide to how the current system fits together but it also provides extensive information about how the AFTS panel’s thinking developed over time and what issues they considered along the way. Take, for example, superannuation. The government has released extensive modelling of both the superannuation recommendations in the review and of its own policies.

I refer again to the issue of having trust in our public servants. I believe that these five people are worthy of our trust. I believe they have done the job they were asked to do. They were asked to come up with recommendations. They were not asked to make decisions for the government, and they have not. They have come up with recommendations and they have provided, to the best of their ability, the information that informed those recommendations. They have done their job very well. Obviously, they have probably generated other drafts of documents along the way. Again, I am sure you are not suggesting that we should see early drafts of the documents. That would be quite ridiculous to suggest that. They would have produced working documents that would have been used to inform and crystallise the panel’s own thoughts. I think that we are best served when our public servants are actually allowed to explore through early working documents before they do make final recommendations. As the Treasury’s blue book briefing—which the coalition received—says, much of the information for the Henry review was prepared for internal use and does not lend itself to publication in its original form. We do not do our public service credit if we require them to prepare all of their internal documents in forms suitable for publication. I would hope that the spirit of openness does not require that every internal document prepared along the way be prepared for publication. That would put an incredible additional burden on our public service and restrict their ability to explore issues in the way we expect them to.

A comprehensive presentation of the AFTS panel’s view is contained in the one thousand pages of the report. It also contains all the Treasury modelling and other information that the panel considered relevant when considering their recommendations. When the government has adopted some of the recommendations from the panel, we have released the appropriate modelling for those policies. But we have said from day 1 that this process of tax reform will be an ongoing community conversation. We have released the review in its entirety to start the process of that debate, and there is a lot there to discuss.

The panel has given us something to support us in trying to improve our tax system. I welcome the shadow Treasurer’s commitment to act constructively on this. We have in front of us in this review quite a comprehensive series of recommendations, ideas and questions for us to pursue and I am looking forward to the opposition starting to talk about the actual content of that review rather than suggesting that perhaps the people who put it together were less than open in their inclusions. I believe that they were and I think our public service deserves our respect, our trust and our thanks for a job well done.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise in support of this important motion and to second it. As the shadow Treasurer said during his contribution, in this new parliament, with this new era of openness, there is no issue that cries out for the application of openness more than the Henry review of taxation.

This tax reform journey of the government’s began two-and-a-half years ago almost to the day. It began at the 2020 summit, which recommended, amongst other things, a comprehensive review of Australia’s taxation system. In the 2008 budget, just a month after the summit, the Treasurer announced the review. In his announcement, he spoke of the spirit of the 2020 summit. What followed from there were 19 months of bravado from the Treasurer, claiming that there had not been tax reform since World War II. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, throughout the 19 months when the Treasurer claimed that he had embarked on the most comprehensive tax reform in Australia’s history, he simultaneously started putting up taxes across the board. But, during the period after the announcement and the conduct of the review, the Treasurer spoke frequently in public forums and in this House about the need to have a great tax conversation.

The motion put forward by the shadow Treasurer and I today calls for the release of the modelling, the working documents and all of the material that will inform that discussion. That is the purpose behind the motion. The reason the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer are not here for this debate today is that they do not want to stand in this House and argue against openness and the release of information that will inform a proper tax debate. They want to continue to do what they have done—what the Treasurer has done—since he was handed the Henry review papers last December.

I mentioned the 19 months of bravado during which the Treasurer said the Henry review was coming. As the shadow Treasurer said, the review considered countless submissions, it cost $10 million, it reviewed 1,500 submissions and, finally, two days before Christmas last year the Treasurer was handed the report. He promised to release that report, and the government’s initial response, very early in the new year. What followed was more than four months of silence—19 months of bravado followed by four months of silence. Then, when the review was finally released, there was one thumping mining tax. The great discussion the Treasurer wanted to have was shut down immediately.

We are in a new parliament. The government says there is a new paradigm, a new era of openness. All of the material that will inform what the Treasurer himself said should be the most comprehensive debate on and consideration of taxation since World War II should be release so that the public can see it, so can all of those who want to participate in the tax summit can see it and so that all members of parliament can see it. As the shadow Treasurer said, the review cost $10 million and took almost two years of consideration by five experts. The modelling papers and working papers that will inform that debate should be released. In their heart of hearts the government knows this is right. The Treasurer had the opportunity today to come into this parliament today and stand at the dispatch box and say that the government would happily comply with this motion. The fact that they have failed to do that shows that their words of openness are as hollow as their words on every other subject.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is truly a bizarre motion, I have to say. I have never seen a shadow Treasurer sitting more sad and forlorn than the one we have right before us here today. Why such a long face, Joe? In opposition you should be rejoicing, perhaps, and looking at all these great things. It is a bizarre motion. No one should be supporting this motion in this place, because you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you are trying to say that the Henry report is a fantastic document: there were so many contributors to it, it is such a comprehensive document, so much time and effort went into it—and some cost, as would be expected in order to do the job properly. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to think that there is something hidden, buried behind it—there is some ulterior motive or some other agenda. Actually, there is: it is one to keep the Australian economy strong. It is one to make sure that this government is doing its job and playing its part in keeping people in jobs. It is all those things that you actually did not do when you were in this place for 12 years.

If we really look behind this motion, what is it about? Are you actually trying to get more information? Are you trying to better understand? You are. Well, it is all there. What are you looking for? This is the question people ought to ask themselves when they read this motion. You are asking that people do not delete or destroy emails or any other related information. It is just unbelievable.

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

Who put you up to talk on this, Bernie? You have been set up.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only person who has been set up here is you, shadow Treasurer. You are the one who is being set up. It is bizarre. This shadow Treasurer is seeking a warrant from the head of Treasury, Ken Henry, that he actually has released all information. On the one hand, they think the report is fabulous—with community contribution, great work, a thousand pages—and on the other hand he says, ‘But are you sure you have released at all?’ When Ken Henry says that yes, he has, and that all the information, all the modelling and all the work that has gone into it is all there—and there are a lot of pages and I will get to that in a moment—the shadow Treasurer, after all of those assurances, is not satisfied. He says he wants a further guarantee—a warrant—to say that it has all been released. Then he wants to go further and say that from this day forward no one in the Treasury ought to be able to destroy any papers. Why would they be destroying any papers? Is there something you think that is contained in this report or in the production of this report that the rest of the world needs to know? What is it? What do you think is there that has not been released?

What we have done is support the independent review by the Treasury. The government does not run the Treasury. It is the same Treasury as when you were in government. Somehow they must have this bizarre thought train that goes on when they are in opposition, which they do not have when they are in government, that suddenly the public service changes. Maybe they are thinking of the way they used to run the public service. Maybe that is what he is really trying to find out. He sits back in his chair and says: ‘Hmmm. When we were in government we used to treat the public service and direct them in a particular way. Perhaps this government is doing the same thing; that is why I do not trust them.’

No, that is not the case. Whatever bizarre, strange thought patterns you have in believing that somehow there is extraneous material that exists out there and that has not been released, you are just mistaken. You are just wrong. Everything actually has been released. This is a great document. Not only has the full report—the 1,000 page document—been released, with all of the modelling, the costings and everything on the record but people in the public gallery can go and google it; go to the Treasury and download it. There will be a pile of paper so high off the ground. On top of that, 344 pages on the architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system, a further 290-page document—the consultation paper in relation to the report—and a further 71-page report on retirement incomes have been released, along with all of the 11 conference papers as well. How much more do you need?

It would not matter, in fact, if (a) this motion were passed by this parliament and (b) everyone actually did everything. It would not matter.

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

It wouldn’t matter? Well let’s pass it!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would not matter for this reason: even if we were to give the shadow Treasurer another truckload of reports and documents and other bits that are freely available and have all been released, he would still say, ‘Ah, but I know there’s more; you’re hiding something.’ It would not matter how much you actually released, because this motion is not about this. It is not about Australia’s tax system. It is not about the economy. This motion is just a stunt in getting this guy on the front pages of the paper doing what he always does, which is downgrade the Australian economy and downgrade everything that this government is trying to do throughout the global financial crisis—the stimulus package, actually keeping people in jobs and keeping interest rates as low as possible. Everyone should reject this motion. It is just a stunt. (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard from the member for Oxley, who was clearly set up by his colleagues on this occasion. It added nothing to the debate except a little bit of humour, and that was—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week the Prime Minister, in a speech which mapped out or sought to map out the key principles that she and the government would take to the reform process for this term of office and that would underpin any reforms that were introduced, pointed out, amongst other things, that transparency would be central to the government’s approach. One of the key planks of reform and debate and the resolution of matters in a balanced way would be the need for transparency. Well, here is the first opportunity. Here is the first test that the Prime Minister is being given to prove that she meant what she said last week. It is the first test of the Prime Minister’s very clear commitment to the principles that she said last week, unambiguously, would be the key planks of any reform by this government.

It is the first chance to prove that this government has changed its modus operandi since the first term of office. It is the first chance to contradict the observation by John Faulkner last week. He put his finger on the problem of Labor’s first term. He said when he was reflecting on Labor and the perceptions of Labor in the community, ‘We are very long on cunning and very short on courage.’ Of course, the first term of this government was characterised by a litany of lack of transparency on very major reforms. We saw with the commitment to the national broadband network, the biggest commitment of funds for any project in Australia’s history, absolutely no transparency, no acceptance of or commitment to a cost-benefit analysis and still no commitment or any attempt to reveal a business plan for a $43 billion project. It is an absolute disgrace and a totally irresponsible position by this government. It is characterised first and foremost by the lack of any transparency about how that decision was taken, why it was taken, how it would stand up and why it is good value for money for the taxpayers who will have to fork out that $43 billion.

On Infrastructure Australia we saw again project after project worth billions and billions of dollars, for which cost-benefit analyses were conducted by Infrastructure Australia but the board was totally frustrated by the government’s refusal to release any of that information. The government made decisions again to the tune of tens of billions of dollars without any release of cost-benefit analyses, why they took those decisions, why one decision was better than another or why it was value for money. We have seen it again and again. We saw the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport say that it was commercial-in-confidence. That, of course, is a total nonsense. Look at the Victorian government. Rod Eddington put up a very comprehensive infrastructure plan for that state. It had every working, every cost-benefit analysis, every piece of modelling—everything is on the state government’s website.

The world has gone on. There has been no conflict of interest between commercial interests. There is no argument other than the government being ‘long on cunning and very short on courage’. We saw it again with the mining taxes referred to over the weekend. We find from FOI that the government in June were advised that the superprofits tax could be found unconstitutional if just one state changed a mining royalty rate. The same argument applies to the tax’s successor, the mineral resources rent tax, which means that there is $10 billion in anticipated revenue in doubt. This bill must be passed. It is essential for good government and for transparency.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite some reservations, I support this motion. During the course of my election campaign I naturally encountered many people both within and outside my electorate. Apart from the key issues which have been well reported and which were relevant in the election in the federal electorate of Melbourne, the one issue which surprised me with the regularity with which people raised it voluntarily—as something they were concerned about which was affecting the way they were voting in the electorate—was the issue of tax reform and the standard of debate around it. It came hot on the heels of the government’s backdown on the mining tax, and the sense that I got from people in my electorate was that many people thought the tax was a good idea. They thought it was a good idea that we apply a tax to the most profitable of profitable projects for minerals that are owned by the Australian people and that we only get one chance to dig up and export. Instead, they saw the government back down in the face of a sophisticated campaign from very powerful interests and the big end of town. There was also a sense of disappointment that the arguments in favour of such a tax were not being properly prosecuted and the information was not being put out in the public domain in the way that it ought to have been.

It is my hope that, removed from the heat of an election campaign, we can have an informed debate about the future of taxation in this country, and the release of this material will assist in that debate. I take on board some of the comments that were raised by the member for Parramatta—I think there is an issue with releasing incomplete drafts—but on the whole the motion is worthy of support. If we are able to have a fuller and franker debate about the future of taxation in this country, we will be in a position to air arguments about, for example, putting the money raised from the mining tax into a sovereign interest fund—an idea that has much to commend it but which has not been aired in the way that it ought to have been. That revenue could then be used to plan for the future of this country. It could particularly be used for infrastructure instead of being subject to potential pork-barrelling in election after election.

On the mining tax, if we as Australians are not able to find a way to efficiently and fairly tax the minerals that the public owns and that we only have one chance to dig up and sell and to use it for the benefit of all of the public, that says something about the relationship between democracy and the big end of town in this country and the willingness to show true political leadership. I hope that release of the modelling assists in the debate about how to properly prepare for our future and moves us towards a tax system that returns to the public a fair share of the natural resources that they own.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.