Senate debates

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Bills

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016; Second Reading

12:14 pm

Photo of Peter Whish-WilsonPeter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This would have to be one of the most stupid pieces of legislation I have seen in this chamber—and I say this with a lot of passion, from the bottom of my heart. I really thought that the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, who I understand has been pushing this, even though a number of his party room have pushed back, would see the sense in compromise on this bill. I have really learnt a lesson in how stubborn our Treasurer can be.

This bill—the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016—puts at risk our agricultural producers who need seasonal labour from backpackers. It takes money—penny pinching—from some of the lowest-income workers in this country, and it flies against what I would have thought was an obligation for us to treat all workers the same. This bill differentiates between foreign workers and Australian workers who are working side by side them and discriminates against foreign workers who we desperately need in this country. In the first week of the double dissolution I went and stood with agricultural producers in the Tamar Valley—apple growers who I have known for years and who I have had to go to as a small vineyard owner in the Tamar Valley to see whether I could get some backpacker labour for my own vineyard at harvest time.

This is an issue I feel very deeply about, and I understand its importance to the community in Tasmania and around the country; I really, genuinely do. When you are growing fruit, as an example, the biggest risk you face is agricultural risk. You need to get your fruit off when the time is right. Growers do not have any second chances. When they need to pick, they need to pick, and they need workers. All the big agricultural producers in Tasmania, in the Tamar Valley, have a policy of employing locals first. They always try to employ Australians first. But the truth is that, as is the case around the rest of the country, there is just not enough labour when it is needed urgently. Backpackers who choose to come to Australia on working holidays fill that gap. They are absolutely critical. Without the workers in these fields, on these orchards, these businesses will fail.

I have already heard some Tasmanian producers talk about potential litigation against the government—suing the government if they lose their crops in the future because they cannot find the workers. This tax, and talk of this tax, has gone through two elections—a double dissolution, two budgets—yet the government brings it to us now. They say they have compromised on 19 per cent. They say backpackers should all be paying 32 per cent. Well, that is actually not true. If backpackers elect to be residents for tax purposes, they do not have to pay 32 per cent on the first dollar they earn. If they meet the criteria to be residents for tax purposes, they pay the same rate of tax as Australians—zero per cent tax.

The easiest way to fix this is to amend the income tax bill of 1982 so that all backpackers, whether they elect to be residents or not, are residents for tax purposes. That means they pay the same tax as Australian workers when they are working side by side with them. They pay zero per cent tax on the first $18,000, and then they pay 19c in the dollar up to $32,000. That is the fairest, simplest way to fix this problem. And let me tell you, that is exactly what agricultural producers want.

I do want to take this opportunity to say that it has also been a lesson to me to see the National Farmers' Federation and other groups come into the Senate, come into parliament—you would think they were there to get a deal for agricultural producers, but it looks a lot more like they are there to get a deal for this government, for the Liberal-Nationals government, rather than for farmers. I have had a lot of feedback directly from producers as to how let down they felt by the NFF and other groups that purport to be representing them on this issue. It was very clear from the evidence at the Senate inquiry in Launceston that Tasmanian producers do not want a tax rate of 19 per cent or 32 per cent. They actually want no tax for the first $18,000, the same as Australians. That is what they want. So, why aren't we giving it to them?

Comments

No comments