Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. I refer to my question yesterday in which I asked the minister to rule out increasing taxes to pay for the $120 billion black hole of new spending promises the Labor government has made just since the May budget—that is, in the last three months. Given the minister did not answer the question, and not wishing to be unfair to her, I now give the minister another opportunity and ask: will the minister rule out, once and for all, increasing taxes in order to meet the government's promised surplus and to pay for the government's $120 billion of spending commitments—yes or no?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again make this point. We have made a commitment which has been in place for some years now that we would ensure that we were a lower-taxing government than the Howard government—and guess what? We are.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Guess what? We are. Because we inherited—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I know the truth hurts, but no amount of guffawing and bellowing will get you away from the simple fact that, if you look at tax as a proportion of the economy, we tax less than those opposite did. Just as importantly, and I invite those opposite to make the same commitment, we have committed to retain the tax-to-GDP ratio below that which we inherited—that is, below 23.7 per cent. We have committed to being a lower-taxing government than the one that we replaced.

I would also remind those opposite that there are a number of tax cuts that this government has put in place which those opposite oppose or have committed to rolling back—and, of course, if you roll back a tax cut, that is a tax hike.

Opposition senators interjecting—

So those opposite have committed to a tax hike for every Australian earning under $80,000 a year. Every Australian earning under $80,000 a year has got a tax cut under this government, and you have committed to rolling it back. Your opposed a company tax cut. You opposed the senior and pensioner tax offset. You opposed the instant asset write-off, a tax break for 2.7 million small businesses.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

And, as my colleague has said, you also opposed the low-income super contribution, a tax break for low-income workers. Yes, you have gone very quiet now, because it is completely unjustifiable.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that, by the minister's very evasive answer, the minister has put increased taxes on the government's agenda, can the minister tell the Senate what new or increased taxes the government is planning—higher income tax, higher company tax, increasing the carbon tax or the mining tax, increasing the Medicare levy or higher fuel excise? Or is the government planning to place even greater tax burdens on small businesses and self-funded retirees?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only party in this chamber, other than the Australian Greens, that is actually publicly advocating an increase to the company tax rate is the Liberal Party. Your 1.5 per cent 'levy'—sorry; a levy is not a tax, I think Mr Hockey said—on the corporate tax rate to pay for your paid parental leave scheme is somehow, magically, not a tax. But that is your policy.

In terms of income tax, we have cut income tax for every Australian earning under $80,000 a year, and the majority of low-income earners under that tax threshold are of course working women. Who is proposing to impose a tax hike, an income tax hike, on that group of Australians? Who is it? It is the Liberal Party of Australia.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nonsense!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I will take that interjection. He says, 'Nonsense.' He should tell that to Joe Hockey, who has said that publicly. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I will give the minister one more opportunity. Will she tell the Senate: where is the money coming from to fund Labor's $120 billion black hole of new spending promises?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question really goes to the long-term structural position of the budget. That it is coming from a party that has opposed changes which improve the structural position of budget is really remarkable. Those opposite think that it is a good use of taxpayers' money to continue to subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires. Those opposite think it is a good thing to provide publicly funded dental services to millionaires. These are some of the changes to the budget, Labor changes, which are about recognising that when you have finite resources you have to focus and prioritise those resources appropriately. Those opposite may come in here and talk about fiscal responsibility, but they have opposed changes to the budget which are about long-term savings and they are opposed to meeting the Charter of Budget Honesty because they know they have $70 billion worth of cuts they want to hide from the Australian people. (Time expired)