Senate debates
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Questions without Notice
Taxation
2:12 pm
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Wait a minute, Senator Joyce. You are entitled to be heard in silence. On my right!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Joyce, wait a minute. Senator Carr and Senator Minchin! Senator Joyce, continue.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am glad they love me; I have missed them.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You know the Libs loathe you!
Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Forshaw interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Forshaw! Senator Joyce, continue.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Given the supposed commitment that Labor made to the Australian people prior to the last election that a Labor government would be open and transparent, which part of the principle of open and transparent are you following by withholding the Henry tax review since last year? Furthermore, considering Labor’s commitment to a principle of fiscal conservatism, what part of the principle of fiscal conservatism are you following by the leaking of sections of the Henry tax review and the uncertainty this is causing in the marketplace?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank Senator Joyce for his question from exile. The answer is: yes, it is a big new tax, and it will put up the price of bread and petrol.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy, come to the question.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Sorry, I thought I was actually right on the question, Mr President. I thought I was spot on the question, because I was sure that was the question that Senator Joyce was going to ask me—
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Is the minister—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Joyce, I have already asked the senator to come to the question. I hear that you are going to take a point of order on relevance. I understand that. I have already asked the senator to come to the question.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, I welcome the question from Senator Joyce because what we are seeing here is an attempt by those who are advocating big new taxes to criticise the ALP for its commitment to keep taxation in this country below the levels—
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on clarification. Is the minister saying that the Henry tax review is a big new tax?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I appreciate that those opposite, particularly Senator Joyce, are very coy about their desire to introduce a big new tax but this government has an absolute commitment, as part of the Henry tax reforms—a commitment that we gave before the last election, which Senator Joyce referred to when he was asking his question—to keep taxation levels across the economy lower than those we inherited from those opposite: one of the biggest-spending, biggest-taxing governments in the history of Australia. It was bigger than in Gough Whitlam’s period—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Under sessional orders the minister is required to be directly relevant in answering the question. The question was very concisely referring to principles of openness and transparency. The minister should be asked to be directly relevant or to sit down.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The minister has 28 seconds remaining. I draw your attention to the question, Senator Conroy.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate that very much, because the question, which Senator Abetz chose to ignore, involved references to ALP commitments before the election, which is exactly what I was debating. It also talked about fiscal conservatism. So there are a broad range of issues that are available in answering this question.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Sessional orders require the minister to be directly relevant. A question that is framed referring to a specific pre-election promise does not allow the minister to traverse every pre-election promise that Labor may have made. This was one about openness and transparency and that is what, under sessional orders, the minister needs to address. If he cannot—and we all think he cannot—he should sit down.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on that point of order, what we have had from the opposition, in the taking of that point of order, is a traverse across a range of complaints that that opposition spokesperson may have. What this minister has been doing is answering the question that has been asked. The question was asked in a number of parts, including more than simply about transparency. So those opposite do not have the opportunity to reframe the question but should, if they are going to take a point of order, take a proper point of order and raise the particular issue. My submission is that there is no point of order being raised. The minister has been answering the question. The difficulty, from the opposition’s perspective, is that they want a specific answer to a specific question but they are not entitled to that. They are entitled to ask a question and have an answer that is relevant to the question asked.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I cannot tell a minister—as I have said repeatedly in this chamber—how to answer a question. I did draw the minister’s attention, on a previous point of order, to the question. I draw the minister’s attention again to the question and the fact that there are 12 seconds remaining to address the question.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am disappointed, but not surprised, to hear those opposite playing politics—their usual political games—with something as important as tax reform. (Time expired)
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I presume, from the first answer, that the Henry tax review is a big new tax. It seems that that was all the answer we got.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The first part of the answer that Senator Conroy gave was that it was a big new tax. My supplementary question is: does the Labor government stand by its promise before the election to Independent Contractors Australia that there will be no change to the existing personal services income laws?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Rudd Labor government is focused on the big picture. We are about what the tax system should be for the next decade. The opposition—those opposite—are only interested in playing day-to-day politics. We have created a national debate on important issues—not just on tax—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senators Heffernan and Sterle!
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This question talks about existing personal services income laws. The minister is giving a ramble. It has nothing to do with the question. Can you direct him to the question.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I draw the minister’s attention to the question. You have 38 seconds remaining, Senator Conroy.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, we are creating a debate on intergenerational issues—health reform and climate change—and on the areas specifically discussed in the question by Senator Joyce. But I am not going to speculate on what the Henry tax review contains. It would be utterly irresponsible to do so. I am not going to speculate upon what an independent tax review panel may or may not have recommended. It will be released, as the Treasurer has indicated, some time prior to the budget.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: once more, the question talked directly to existing personal services income laws. The minister, so far, has not even broached that part of the question once. He has not even mentioned it once. He has talked all around the issue. In the 14 seconds that are remaining, can you please direct the minister to answer the question that was asked of him?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I cannot direct the minister to answer the question in a way that you may want it answered. He did refer, in his response to you, directly to the question that you asked. I draw the minister’s attention to the question. There are 14 seconds remaining.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The independent tax review panel has sifted through a wealth of input and has given us its recommendations. As we have always said, we will consider these and release these. (Time expired)
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. We did not get anywhere even close to an answer. It is an absolute disgrace. Does the government believe the existing personal service income laws are, to quote Senator Sherry ‘a threat to the integrity of the taxation system and a threat to the working conditions of employees’? Is the government policy now what was promised before the election? Is it Senator Sherry’s anti-small business statement or— (Time expired)
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I appreciate that Senator Joyce was not able to finish all of his question in his 30 seconds. I am not going to speculate. I am not going to simply accept the assertions that Senator Joyce has made about what he claims Senator Sherry has said and what he claims is a contradiction. I will look into this matter and, if there is anything to the claimed contradiction that Senator Joyce is seeking to put to me, I will get some further information and come back to the chamber. On the remainder of his question, let me be very clear—Senator Joyce—we will not be supporting your maternity leave big tax. We have no intention of putting up the prices of bread and petrol, as you are supporting.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: once again, sessional orders require that the minister be directly relevant to the question. To assist the minister, the question was: is the government’s policy what was promised before the election—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I have to hear the point of order first.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Can I finish?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Excuse me. I have to hear the point of order first. You will be heard in silence, Senator Abetz.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question was: is the government’s policy that which was promised before the election or is it Senator Sherry’s anti-small business statement?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Hansard will disclose that that is what was asked. Senator Conroy said that he did not take on face value that which Senator Joyce asserted Senator Sherry said. That is fine.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
How do you know what—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I happen to have actually listened to the question—unlike you, Senator Conroy.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! If others wish to come into this point of order at the end they are entitled to, but there is to be no debating across the chamber.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Clearly, the minister was not being directly relevant and he should be sat down.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. I draw your attention to the question, Senator Conroy. You have 15 seconds remaining to come to the question that was asked by Senator Joyce.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I do appreciate that last attempt at a point of order because, clearly, Senator Abetz was clairvoyant. He knew what Senator Joyce was going to say.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy, come to the question and do not debate the issue.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you. As I said at the beginning of my answer, I am not going to take on face value the report to the alleged contradiction— (Time expired)