Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. There are nearly three million hardworking small and family businesses in Australia. Will the Albanese government carve out the hairdressers, builders, gyms, pharmacies, vets, dentists, landscapers or childcare operators from your broken promises and higher taxes?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Small businesses are already eligible for four different concessions, and none of them have changed. None of them, whatsoever, have changed. That's why, in addition to that, some of them—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey, order! We're just going to reset. This continual yelling right on my doorstep is well beyond the pale. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. Can everyone just take a breath, reset, listen to the Prime Minister and show some respect.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addition to that, in the budget we announced $3½ billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses to encourage investment and innovation. We're making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent, which is something that's never been done before. We're introducing a permanent two-year loss carry-back to support resilience, investment and risk-taking. We're introducing loss refundability to help startups grow in their first years. We're expanding tax incentives for venture capital to unlock patient capital for young, expanding firms. In addition to all that, we're better targeting the research and development tax incentive. That's why the Council of Small Business Organisations, for example, said about the instant asset write-off: 'It gives—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister's just going to pause. The question was about the carving out of businesses and the higher taxes, but I'll listen to the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. The question was about broken promises and higher taxes, and he hadn't—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two things: obviously, one of them is that that was a clear and deliberate abuse of a point of order; the second is in terms of relevance. The first sentence of that question was this: 'There are nearly three million hardworking small and family businesses in Australia.' The answer being given could not be more relevant.

Honourable members interjecting —

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, members on my right and the Chief Government Whip. We're going to do this in an orderly way, and we'll hear on the point of order.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order that the manager of business of the House made, there is a specific question at the end, and that's what we—

Honourable members interjecting—

Yes, at the end. We're allowed to—you can't just have a question mark. You can't just have a question mark. You have to be able to ask the question. It's question time.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for that assistance. We'll deal with the Leader of the Opposition's point of order and the Leader of the House's response. Obviously, there was a question in there, but all speakers since the beginning of question time have never confined the answer, because the standing orders require the Prime Minister be—

You've raised the point of order. I'm dealing with your point of order, Leader of the Opposition, so there's no point yelling at me. The standing orders provide for the Prime Minister to be directly relevant. If you would like a yes/no answer or you would like a direct answer, I don't have the powers to direct the Prime Minister to do that. All members, I think, are aware of that. The Prime Minister is talking about exactly what he was asked about, so he is being directly relevant. He has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked about small business and the impact of the budget, and I'm precisely doing that. The worse he's going, the more he interjects, but the fact it—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Leader of the Opposition, take a breath. The Prime Minister can continue.

Order! The Treasurer is not helping the situation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the budget, we announced $3½ billion of support for small business, and they don't want to hear about it. They want to write it off, as if it didn't happen, because it doesn't fit the rhetoric of the three right-wing parties and their allies. This is what the council of small business had to say: 'It gives small business the opportunity to plan ahead—to plan their investments and how they are going to grow.'

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, which was in the budget.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the budget! The NFF—just one for the Nats—said:

It's a simple and effective measure that helps farmers reduce costs and increase their productivity.

ACCI said:

Many small business owners will be pleased to see this measure made permanent …

Over and over, the measures that we put forward, right across the sector—

Honourable members interjecting—

The worse they're going, the louder they get. This is a mob who think the future is making Tony Abbott the President of the Liberal Party.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget helping young Australians who aspire to own a home of their own? Why is this important, and are there any alternative approaches to housing policy?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canberra for her question. Last week, we were with the member for Canberra and the Treasurer and the housing minister in the home in Kingston of Matt, Mika and Pikelet. The aspiration of homeownership is right at the heart of the budget that we delivered last week. It's something that is the fundamental aspiration that Australians have. They have it not only for themselves; they have it for their kids and their grandkids. And the truth is that over the years, more and more, it's not just young people—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's got a lot harder.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it has got harder. That's the point. That's why we're fixing it. That's what we're fixing. I take the interjection from the member for Page. It has got harder over many years, particularly since 1999. Prices have gone up by more than double the level of wages since 1999 for so many young people. But also, parents and grandparents worry that their kids will never get into a home of their own. That is, in part, because a young person going up for an auction is standing at the auction and competing with an investor going for their fifth or their 10th house or what have you, and they have a huge advantage over the first home buyer. That is just the truth.

What we have done is change the system so that, if people want to invest—good on them—they can still do so. But they'll be investing not only in their wealth and their future assets; they'll be investing in the wealth and assets of the nation. This is something that's been called for and acknowledged by some of those opposite, including the shadow Treasurer, of course.

Last night, more Australians were on the 7.30 program talking about their own experiences. A young couple were there. They had bought their first home in an auction in Sydney on Saturday for even less than they had budgeted. That couple didn't come up against property investors with an unfair tax advantage. The young man, Sebastian, said he was shocked and stunned that they had won at all. But that is what the reform is about. It is about making sure that young Australians can have the reality of homeownership—not a dream that can't be fulfilled but a reality—so every Australian, not just some, can aspire to a roof over their head. Aspiration for all, not just for some—that is what we stand for, and that is what our budget delivers.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask again: will the Prime Minister just be honest with Australians and tell us which small businesses will be carved out from Labor's broken promises and higher taxes?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support small business, and that's precisely why we had $3½ billion of investment to assist small business in our budget. That's why, as well, in our budget, we had, of course, tax cuts again, making five lots of tax cuts, helping people who are in small business to go ahead. That is in addition to the tax cut that we have coming in on 1 July and the tax cut next 1 July and the legislation that we'll be bringing into the parliament on Thursday that will include, of course, our instant tax deduction, making an enormous difference going forward.

When it comes to small businesses, it isn't just the ones that I named; the Housing Industry Association have said:

Making the instant asset write off permanent gives housing businesses—

which are a major part of small business—

the confidence to invest, grow and lift productivity.

Business NSW said:

… we welcome the government delivering … stability for small and medium businesses.

Right across the board, we have received support.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, I don't know how much more specific you can be than to ask which small businesses will be carved out from Labor's broken promises and higher taxes?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we've indicated before, you'd like a list read out to the House, I'm assuming. You would like a—

You said, 'Something relevant.' Great. The Prime Minister is talking about the small businesses that he was asked about. I can't, unfortunately, deliver what you would like. But if he wasn't talking about the small businesses that he was asked about, he wouldn't be directly relevant, so he is being directly relevant. We can keep going down this path, but that is the standing orders. If you wish to change the standing orders, you're entitled to do so. But as they stand now, this is the way that question time has always operated.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm talking about is the lower taxes we're introducing for small business. The lower taxes for small business—sums that those opposite don't seem to acknowledge even exists, whether it's the instant asset write-off, the permanent two-year loss carry back, the loss refundability to help startups, expanding tax incentives for venture capital or better targeting the research and development tax incentive. All of those are aimed very directly at supporting small business, because we do support small business. We do support, as well, the opportunity of young people to get a roof over their head, which is something that those opposite do not support. They support entrenching inequality; we support aspiration for all.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts and tax reforms help Australians, and how does that compare to other approaches?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the member for Bennelong for his important question and for all of his work. This government is cutting taxes for workers five times, in three different ways. We cut taxes in our first term, there's another tax cut in July and another one the July after that, and on Thursday we will introduce legislation to cut income taxes a fourth and a fifth time as well. That's because that legislation includes a thousand dollar instant deduction and also the Working Australians Tax Offset. Our tax cuts mean that an average worker could be up to $2,800 better off in the year that these tax cuts are implemented.

The legislation on Thursday includes those new tax cuts, and it includes the changes we are making to negative gearing and capital gains. This legislation is all about making it easier to own a first home, better aligning the tax treatment for workers and asset owners and also funding these tax cuts. The reason these four elements are all together is that the negative gearing and capital gains tax changes fund the tax cuts for workers and for small businesses. The package is broadly revenue neutral over the four years, and that's why these measures are all in together. By passing the core elements of the package quickly, we will give the market some certainty about the major changes while we consult on the implementation details flagged in the budget.

This is not unusual. The Howard government's GST reforms required more than 30 bills, and when it came to the capital gains tax changes in 1999—also around 30 bills. So this legislation on Thursday is a test for the coalition—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Maranoa, Member for Goldstein and Member for Gippsland, that yelling is completely unprofessional, but it's also against the standing orders, so you're warned. Member for Goldstein, I assume you want the MPI to proceed. So everyone is clear: if there are more interjections, there won't be an MPI today. Because that yelling is unacceptable. So there won't be an MPI if the member for Goldstein interjects. There are consequences for actions.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is a test for the coalition, and it's a test that they have failed before. It beggars belief to remember that in the first term the big, two mistakes that they made in the first term because of the genius of the member for Hume were to vote against tax cuts and to block housing for Australians. They are showing all of the signs of repeating the exact same two mistakes that they made in the first term. They haven't learned a thing and they haven't changed a bit since the member for Hume convinced them in the last parliament to vote against the tax cuts that this government was putting in place. He got it badly wrong the first time and it looks like he's going to repeat the mistake.

So let me be very clear. If they vote against this legislation, they are voting for higher income taxes once again. They are voting to make it harder for people to buy their first home. And, when people are crying out for change in the housing market and in the tax system, they would be clinging to and voting for a broken status quo that is locking too many young Australians out of housing. They should vote for the tax cuts that working Australians need and deserve, which this government is determined to give them.