Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, I want to make some inquiries of the minister in relation to this legislation. I will not repeat all of the things that I said in my speech, which I thought explained my position reasonably well. I know that the minister was not in the chamber, but I understand that the minister saw parts of my speech on the internal video. Basically—and I want to make this very clear, lest it be misreported—I do not object to the surcharge on the incomes of those earning $180,000 or more; in fact, I support that.

I know, of my own limited thought, that we do have a debt crisis, and I have heard the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister indicate that we have a debt crisis that needs to be addressed. I accept that there is a debt crisis. I can easily see that, when you go within six short years from $60 billion in credit to $560 billion in debt, you have a debt crisis that needs to be addressed. The same thing confronted the Howard government in 1996, but in those days we had some things that could be sold—for example, Telstra. As a result of those sales and judicious management by the Howard government, Labor's 1996 debt of $96 billion was paid off. It will take a lot longer to pay off the Gillard-Rudd government's debt of some $560-odd billion this time round. Desperate measures are needed to address Labor's $667 billion—I think it is—debt. Desperate measures need to be taken.

The government have been creditable in tightening their belts. They have got rid of a lot of Labor's wasteful programs and are trying desperately to bring the budget back to a manageable size, and good luck to them. Congratulations to the Treasurer, the finance minister and indeed the government as a whole on the work they have started in this budget. There is a long way to go.

One of those drastic measures that need to be taken is this surcharge of two per cent, I think it is, on incomes above $180,000. I repeat: I support that. But, as I mentioned in my speech on the second reading, I cannot understand, in spite of many inquiries in the appropriate circumstances, why individuals are being requested to make the contribution, but companies which are profitable are not. I well recall both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying, 'This is a matter for all of us,' and it is indeed a matter that all Australians should be contributing to. Certainly those who are on substantial incomes have an obligation to contribute, and I support that. But I simply cannot understand, and no-one can explain to me, why it is that companies which earn more than $180,000 per year in profits are not being asked to share the burden.

Some would say, 'We don't want to attack small business,' but there would not be many small-business companies earning more than $180,000, I regret to say, after six years of Labor, and many that have a corporate veil are really a trustee for certain family trusts, so they are really not in the equation. I am talking about companies that I have mentioned by name. I bear none of these companies any ill will, but just think of the biggest companies in Australia. There is a list of 3,000 of them, I think—companies in Australia that are very profitable. Why are they not being requested to make a contribution to a crisis that 'all of us' have to contribute to?

I will not name the names, although people who know what I am talking about will know the company involved. I bear no ill will towards this particular company. A lot of cane farmers up my way do bear ill will towards this company. It is the company that owns the four mills in the locality in which I live. It is doing things with the sale of sugar that a lot of the cane farmers do not like, but I am confident that in the fullness of time there will be some accommodation reached between the mill owners and the cane farmers—but that is an issue for another time. That particular company has no Australian shareholders. I do not know what profits that company makes, but I hope they are substantial, because it paid a lot of money for those four and other mills in the North Queensland area. It is a Singapore based company, and any profits by way of dividend after payment of Australian company tax go to Singapore.

I ask why those shareholders are not being asked to contribute to a debt crisis that I am pretty sure that company would have made something of in the days of the Rudd-Gillard dysfunctional government. Can someone please tell me—and this is my question to the minister—why is it that individuals have to pay the surcharge but not companies that earn their living, earn their income, from Australia?

It just does not make sense to me. And, as I say, in spite of asking all the cleverest people why this was so, I have not yet been able to get a substantial answer. The minister is aware of the issues that I am going to raise. I mentioned it in my speech on the second reading and I have mentioned it privately to the minister. I am hoping that he will be able to make me understand why this is so.

This is not, as the minister generously acknowledged yesterday in his summing-up speech, a new-found passion of mine. It was an issue I raised at the time when the Labor government introduced a debt levy—again, a levy on individuals but not on companies. I raised the point at that time with the Labor government: 'Why is it that you are asking the butcher and the baker to contribute to the flood levy and not Coles and Woolworths, which are the principal competitors of the butcher and baker?' It just did not make sense to me then and it does not make sense to me now. I will listen intently in anticipation of the minister's explanation as to why this is so.