Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer was asked about his plan to force thousands of widows and divorcees to pay more tax by removing their access to grandfathering for capital gains tax and negative gearing. He said:

… the arrangements as you describe them are consistent with the way that the acquisition rules apply in the current CGT arrangements.

This morning, the Prime Minister had to step in again and dump the Treasurer's plan. How many more humiliating backdowns will it take for the Treasurer to admit his budget is a failure?

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

I'll tell you what's humiliating: the shadow treasurer's inability to ask me a question himself. I thank the honourable member for her question. As we said yesterday, the arrangements are consistent with treatment elsewhere in the tax system. But, when we were asked about this yesterday, we did take particular care around our response because we were still considering the amendments that were being circulated in the Senate throughout the day. And that's why we provided the answer that we did at the time. We are and we have been, as the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Finance earlier today have said, we've been aware of these issues and we are working through them in the usual way. We do intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in subsequent legislation. We'll also ensure that the exemption for income from genuine testamentary trusts applies to the minimum tax on capital gains as well so that they work appropriately together.

Now, we've made it clear on a number of occasions—and I think those opposite know this—that it's not unusual at all for big tax reform packages to be legislated with multiple pieces of legislation. The Howard government did it with the GST. The Howard government did it when they made this mistake on the capital gains tax discount in 1999. There were something like 30 pieces of legislation on both occasions. So it's not unusual for there to be consultation. It's not unusual for there to be multiple pieces of legislation, and that's what we are doing in this instance.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I can hear the interjections from those opposite. I think everybody here and everybody watching at home and in the galleries as well knows what's really happening here. They are trying to distract from the fact that, when the bills come back down from the Senate, they will vote against tax cuts for workers and a fair go for first home buyers. That's what they're trying to obscure. They're desperately hoping that nobody notices that the three right-wing parties and their divisive antiworker agenda will see them vote against tax cuts once again.

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

The Treasurer will pause. The manager on a point of order?

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

Yes—relevance. The question was about the humiliating backdown that you're now making. It wasn't about this.

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

Yes, the manager is correct. He wasn't asked about the opposition or their positions. It was about government decisions, so I'll just ask the Treasurer to return to the question.

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

I was asked about the legislation before the Senate. The legislation will be coming back down to the house this afternoon, and every member of this parliament will have an important choice to make. I know what choice we'll be making. We'll be voting to support workers and first home buyers and future generations. That's who we'll be supporting. Now, when this legislation comes down and when it passes this House, it will demonstrate this above all else: this tax reform bill passing the House today is a win for workers, it's a win for first home buyers and it's a win for future generations. That's why we'll be voting for it.