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

I thank the minister for his courteous response. I have to say that there is not a lot of what he said that I do not strongly agree with, but he still did not answer the question. He did raise the issue of the paid parental scheme—which I had not raised today. But, Minister, you cannot have it both ways. If there is, and I accept there is a debt crisis that requires people to contribute, whether it is the reduction of government assistance or additional tax for high-income earners, why is it that companies—and you have told me that there are 3,000 of them earning more than $5 million a year, which is a bit of an advance on $180,000, I might say—are not being asked to contribute to the accepted and acknowledged debt crisis Australia faces?

I could say to you, Minister, in purely crass political terms, that every dollar that could be raised from companies would be a dollar less that individual taxpayers—that is, voters—would have to pay. So it is a no-brainer to me, from a purely crass political perspective, but that is not why I am arguing the point. I am not suggesting that we should increase company beyond 30 per cent, and I accept, Minister, you comments about Australia wanting to welcome investment into Australian companies. I accept all that but, if we are doing that, why then are we introducing what many have said is a very generous paid parental scheme at a time when we have a debt crisis?

You could easily divert the $5 billion that will be raised from the top 3,000 companies to pay off Labor's debt. That way, we perhaps may not need a three-year temporary levy on other Australians. We may not need to curtail other assistance that has had to be curtailed to pay off Labor's mismanagement and huge debt. If we could get more people contributing to the repair effort—which I accept is needed and which you have rightly explained, Minister—isn't that a good thing?

We clearly have this debt crisis. Labor, we know, were just appalling in the way they managed the country's finances. We are always left with the job of fixing that. As I say, I congratulate the government on the steps it has taken, but I do not think they go far enough. I was pleased to hear Mr Hockey say, 'The age of entitlement is finished.' So wouldn't this be an appropriate time—with the support of the Commission of Audit—to say, 'The paid parental scheme is a good goal to head towards. It is something that a wealthy, prosperous Australia could and should enter into, but perhaps now is not the right time because now, at this stage in our game, we are trying desperately to pay off Labor's debt'?

I repeat: we are doing that by getting additional tax from high-income earners and we are having to make very modest and moderate savings in other assistance measures because the age of entitlement is finished. Yet many have said to me that, with the paid parental scheme, the age of entitlement is finished. I will not enter into that. That is a debate for another place and another time. It is a debate, as I understand, is yet to be held. I read in the paper that there are—quoting the Deputy Prime Minister—'different issues' being looked at by the government in relation to the paid parental scheme. I look forward at some time to being taken into confidence by the government on just what is going to happen with it. But, as I say, that is another debate for another time.

My concern at the moment is that we have this debt crisis—and those are Mr Hockey and the Prime Minister's words. I accept them. You do not need to accept their words to know that, after six years of Labor—as after the Hawke-Keating years, 13 years of Labor—there will be a financial crisis. It has to be addressed. I agree with that. I have no issue at all with my government on that, but what I simply cannot understand—and, with respect, Minister, I know it is not totally your responsibility but you have not answered the question—is why companies do not pay this.

Let me ignore this current levy and go back to Labor's flood levy. You might find this easier to answer, Minister. The Labor Party introduced that levy to help Queensland recover from floods. Why was it that individuals had to pay but companies—like the company I have talked about but not named, which makes a profit out of sugar cane grown in Australia and, quite rightly, sends its profits in dividends to Singapore—were not asked to contribute to the flood levy? I know for a fact that its mill operations actually received some benefit from the flood levy that individual Australians were asked to pay. Why wasn't that company asked to pay? It cannot be because the dividends were going to Australian shareholders who had already paid, because they all go elsewhere. I just use that company as an example because it is an immediate one for me, easy for me to relate, but with BHP, Rio and Wesfarmers—you name it—I am sure a lot of their shareholders are overseas. Why aren't they being asked to contribute to paying off Labor's debt as every other Australian is being asked to? It just does not make sense to me.

I note that the Labor Party and, I think, the Greens are supporting this flawed, in my view, method of raising additional funds that are needed. Labor, of course, would support it, because they did this with the flood levy. I indicate that I am opposed to the bill, because, with respect, Minister, neither you nor the Treasurer nor anyone has explained to me why it is that these 3,000 profitable companies earning $5 million or more are not contributing to solving Labor's debt crisis. Perhaps you could do that, Minister, not that it matters—as I say, with Labor and, I think, the Greens supporting the government, this is going to go through regardless of how I vote. But I do want to make the point as strongly as I can so that, if we in the future need to raise money for particular issues, we do it in an honest way by increasing the general rate of taxation on the progressive scales we have in Australia, so that we can deal with these things that come up. And floods come up—I accept that. Debt crises come up—I accept that. After Labor rule, it is a given—you know there is going to be a crisis. But everyone should be contributing, and that includes companies, many of which are foreign owned and controlled and with foreign shareholders. Why shouldn't they contribute as well?

Minister, I hope you can find something new that would convince me I should support this bill. So far, I regret to say, you have not, and you are not alone in that. We have a $5 billion bucket there that could be used to pay off Labor's debt, and we are apparently not using that. We are engaging in what some—not necessarily me—call an age-of-entitlement allowance to certain individual Australians. I hope, Minister, you will be able to persuade me. If not, I hope that, in the future, governments, be they of this persuasion or that persuasion, will have an honest tax system where additional money is raised and not this dodgy arrangement where we have a levy, not a tax, that is imposed on only a certain number of Australians and not on Australia's wealthiest companies.