Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8:30 am this morning Senators Day, Moore and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Moore.

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Turnbull Government's failure to present a tax plan to the Australian people.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that our matter of public importance was selected today with the ballot because there is nothing more important to Australian workers and Australian families than tax. In Senate question time today one of the first questions asked of the government was: where is your tax plan? What we got initially was an almost zero response from Senator Brandis and then, in response to our first supplementary question, we got a lecture on everything but tax. By the third supplementary question the lecture continued but Senator Brandis confirmed to not only the Australian Labor Party but all Australians that when it comes to tax and tax policy the Turnbull government has absolutely nothing to offer. That is because we have seen ideas put up, the backbench react and the ideas suddenly come off the table. It has been nothing more than a disgrace.

We know that initially Mr Abbott talked a big game. Who could forget the first budget of the Abbott government that took all Australians by surprise? Many of the commitments made to Australian voters were broken. No cuts to health, no cuts to education and the Gonski ticket that the Abbott government was then on with Labor—all of that was broken, trashed and burned. The trust of the Australian people was absolutely trashed and burned. The Australian people were treated with absolute disrespect.

Right from day one, as Liberal governments tend to do, there were big promises about tax cuts. It was all about tax cuts. When Mr Turnbull necked Mr Abbott for the top job he reiterated his support for that first harsh budget. The Australian community are absolutely in lock step with Labor that that was a very bad budget. It hurt ordinary working Australians. He signed right up to it. Mr Turnbull, the new Prime Minister, absolutely stood by every single element in that budget.

We have seen a bit of back-pedalling but we have not seen anything absolutely wiped off the slate. The $100,000 degrees are still there. Senator Birmingham, in a radio interview last week, confirmed that they still do want to look at those sorts of things. They are still there, but tax seems to have taken a back seat. It is something we do not hear them talking about any more. The big tax cuts were going to make life easier for Australian families and we were going to have cuts to various programs because money was going to be flooding in from all of the tax cuts that would benefit Australian families. We have seen nothing. What we have seen is not a plan; it is an absolute shambles.

We had a lot of talk about a year ago about the GST. We had a lot of talk particularly from Mr Hockey, who was the then Treasurer. Of course, he has gone off to take up a plum job in the US. He is our new ambassador. When he took up that job he said he could stay here and fight and argue with people in his own party in the parliament or he could go off to the US. What kind of job recommendation is that? He said: 'Rather than be abusive to my mates in the LNP, I will go to the US and take the plum job. Because I am such a poor negotiator you put me in charge of our relationship with the US.' What a joke. That was just a convenient way to get rid of Mr Hockey after Mr Abbott had been necked by Mr Turnbull.

The GST was clearly on the table. In conversations Mr Morrison talked about it. Senator Cormann talked about it. Indeed, Mr Turnbull, the new Prime Minister, talked about the GST. We had all this talk. Of course, Labor have been very clear about the GST. We oppose it. We opposed it when it was introduced and we have continued to oppose it. We certainly opposed increasing the GST to 15 per cent, which the Turnbull government was talking about. We campaigned with the Australian public. We let them know that the Turnbull government wanted to put a GST on health and food and they were even looking at putting it on education. That would have increased the burden that ordinary Australian households and workers were already under after the first and second bad Abbott and Turnbull governments.

Because Labor and the Australian public were in lock step in their opposition to the GST the wonderful Turnbull backbench started to get really nervous. The backbenchers are the ones really running the show. They are getting nervous about a double-D now. You might have heard in the media this morning a few of them getting a bit nervous about that. What happened? Suddenly the GST was off the table. But was it? On the day the Prime Minister called it off the table Senator Cash said that everything was under consideration. Who can you believe? Again that is a very clear demonstration that the Turnbull government has absolutely no plan at all when it comes to tax.

On the very day the Prime Minister says it is off the table you have senior people in the government, such as Senator Cash, saying that everything is on the table and it is all up for consideration. We saw that their notes were leaked. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe they are not all reading the same notes; they are just making it up as they go along. It was a very clear demonstration from senior people in the Turnbull government that they have no idea about the GST. Who could forget the appalling National Press Club speech by Mr Morrison just a couple of months ago? In the lead-up to the budget you hint a little bit. But of course he had the GST ripped out from underneath him so he did not have much left to discuss.

But he has spoken on the public record. So have a number of the Turnbull government members, but particularly the Treasurer has said this. He has talked about 'excesses' with negative gearing. He has talked about it a number of times, but of course once again he has been shut down, so we have never been able to get to the bottom of exactly what Mr Morrison was talking about when he talked about excesses in negative gearing. But it is very clear from those opposite that they want to make it easier for you to buy your 16th or your 17th property, rather than to enable young Australian families and indeed young Australian workers to buy their first house. Of course they are looking after their rich mates, as usual.

And then we look at multinational tax avoidance. A couple of weeks ago in this place I spelled out very clearly all of the partners of Alcoa—CITIC, some Japanese companies and so on—paying zero tax in this country while the Turnbull government stood by and allowed seafarers, Australian workers, Australian taxpayers, Australian mums and dads, members of the Australian community, to be sacked by companies that are not paying one cent in tax in this country. Not one cent! They stood by, and they thought it was fair game to see Australian jobs go to foreign workers on Australian waters for the princely sum of around $2 an hour. That is a disgrace. We have seen that the Turnbull government certainly does not stand for Australian jobs.

And then we saw the dirty deal that the Greens did on corporate tax. The government were desperate to do something. Besides not having a tax policy, they thought perhaps they could do something on corporate tax. The Greens had agreed with Labor—they had been in lock step with Labor—on reforming corporation tax in this country. Because the Greens have no idea how to negotiate—they barely have their Ls on when it comes to negotiation—they caved in at the eleventh hour and did a pathetic deal with the government on tax. It was a pathetic deal, and we have seen that again on Senate voting changes that they want to bring in: a cave-in. That is what they do.

It is very clear that the Turnbull government have no idea when it comes to tax, no plan. We have the budget now due—well, due sometime in May. We are not sure when the budget is due now. It used to be the second Tuesday, but who knows now, because they are hinting at something else? Perhaps they will need their mates the Greens to help them out again. They have no tax policy. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to stand to contrast the incompetence of previous Labor governments and the absolute competence of coalition governments, on this occasion led by the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. This question is all about not the government of the day but what the alternative might be should the coalition not be returned. It is necessary to examine the past because the best predictor of future behaviour and future performance is always past behaviour and past performance. What I will be speaking to, of course, is the situation of a measured, thinking, calculating and consultative government as opposed to that from the past.

These figures really go to the performance of the last government compared to the coalition government. In this case it was the coalition government leading up to 2007-08, when John Howard regrettably lost government and—unfortunately for the people of Australia—Labor had six years. The budget position when the coalition left government was a surplus of $20 billion. It became a $47 billion deficit. In the average budget position we were in surplus to the tune of $8 billion. That went out to $40 billion deficit. On government debt: there was a surplus of $45 billion in 2007-08. The debt went out to $192 billion and gross debt to $310 billion. So the question is: who is competent to run this country? Who is competent to contain expenditure? We saw that the coalition had 23.1 per cent of GDP in government spending, and, when Labor lost government in 2013, it had jumped up to 26 per cent.

You have to start to have a look at where we are vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Once again, these stats are uncomfortable for our opponents on the other side, but here they are. In the global scene of all countries, in 2007-08, on government wastefulness, under the coalition government we were 10th best in the world in that space. We dropped to be 56th. On the balancing of the budget, we were 38th, and under Labor ended up at 75th. On our debt, we were the 16th best country in 2007-08, and we went to 34th under the then finance minister, sitting opposite me.

Let us talk about pay and productivity. You would have thought that was an area of keen interest to Labor. We were the 40th best country in the world. It is a disappointment that we were only 40th; we should have been better than that at the end of the Howard government. But, at the end of the Labor government, in the global sphere we had dropped from 40th to be 113th. In hiring and firing practices, we declined from 63rd best in the world to 137th. Even in construction, the quality of our infrastructure construction, we dropped from being 21st best in the world to 34th under Labor. In government regulation, we were 68th, and that is not acceptable. We should not have been 68th. But we descended to be 128th. On tax as a percentage of profit, we declined from being 83rd to 109th in the world.

It is all about communication. It is all about consultation. It is all about a mature way of going about the management of the country. I have spoken before in this place about the knee jerk of the $900 and $1,200 cheques paid out by then Prime Minister Rudd to avoid a recession in December 2009 and March 2010. Those of us who have sat in Senate inquiries since then know where those funds went. They went into poker machines. They went into Chinese-made televisions and other whitegoods. And, according to nursing sisters who have told me, they went into drugs and alcohol, as measured by the increase in the incidence of accidents and emergencies at the major hospitals around Australia on Friday nights. That is the effect of that circumstance.

The mining tax in our home state was a tax which we stood here and said would never make any money and nor did it make any money. But what was more important was that the then Treasurer, Mr Swan, went out and spent the money before it ever came in and of course disappointed the Australian community because he could not honour that commitment. The carbon tax we have spoken about at great length in this place.

Let me record where the importance is for the Australian community—that is, in the jobs area, in jobs growth. It is the case that, since being elected since September 2013, we in government have seen the creation of more than 420,000 jobs. Last year alone 300,000 were created. Full-time, there were 158,000 jobs. Part-time employment increased. Female employment rose by 164,000 last year alone, a 3.1 per cent increase of which 93,000 were full-time jobs. Male employment we know went up by 2.2 per cent to a record high of 6.4 million male Australians working. Total unemployment had declined by 22,300 people. These are the critically important measures.

The previous speaker was right—there will be a budget in early May. It is when the budget comes down that tax will be presented. Let us have a look at the performance of the coalition in government in its efforts to turn around an in excess of $150 billion deficit, an in excess of $600 billion debt that we are now borrowing $1.2 billion every month just to pay the interest on. How often do we stand or sit in this place and hear about the need for expenditure in different areas? Every day, all the time. You think to yourself, 'Gee, if only we had that $1.2 billion every month that we are borrowing offshore to pay the interest on a debt that did not exist in 2007.'

But this government, in its 2½ years, has already improved the budget position by some $68 billion. We have spent $50 billion repairing the budget. Where is the economic failure in that? I have already mentioned the new jobs that we have created. There are 700 new jobs a day created under this government. We are outperforming the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and every other G7 country. Job advertisements are up 15 per cent. These are the sorts of figures that will be asking the Australian people to reflect on. We speak of tax in the budget that we are currently dealing with. We know, under then Minister Billson, we saw $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small business and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures, and we are seeing the benefits of that injection now—$6.8 billion in job activities, the new employment services system.

In the time left available to me, I do want to speak again about negative gearing as it has been presented by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten. I say this with deep concern. The property sector is 11½ per cent of our national wealth. It creates over a million jobs a year, more than mining and manufacturing. We know there are 840,000 Australians with taxable incomes below $80,000 who negatively gear. And these are not the 'top of the wozza' earners you hear Senator Cameron going on about but 540,000 teachers, 52,000 retail workers, 36,000 nurses and midwives, and 200,000 hospitality workers. But as has been explained here this afternoon, it has only just come out that it is not just negative gearing on housing but what has whistled up underneath it—negative gearing for the purchases of shares, which will now no longer be able to be undertaken.

I know over that side you hate small business. You do not, Acting Deputy President Sterle; you were one but I do not quite know why you are on your side. But the simple fact of the matter is if somebody purchases a commercial building to open a retail business, they will no longer be able to claim the costs of establishing and running that business, vis-a-vis the negative gearing on that property, against their taxable losses in the years in which it is incurred. So we will have a situation where there will not be the encouragement to invest. We know this nonsense about negative gearing on new dwellings. What happens when the dwelling is sold? It will be sold to somebody who will not be a recipient of negative gearing so we will see an increase in rentals. It is too important for the running of this country to allow people who have no competence in economic management to be given the purse strings because past performance from 2007 to 2013 tells us where the country will end up—broke. (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether Senator Back has ever been in the situation where he could not afford his own first house.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course I have. I had nothing when I kicked off. I started out with nothing. I borrowed to go to university.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps he was but it would have been a long time ago. He cannot remember what the housing affordability issue was like. Let me tell you, Senator Back, a lot of Australians are struggling. They are struggling to buy their first home. Most of them end up renting for most of their lives. One of the key reasons is we are subsidising, through taxation policy in this country, the wealthy investors who are making money out of property speculation. They are competing in the same market as young and old and low-income Australians who simply want to own their own home. That is a dream that a lot of Australians have had but unfortunately it is a nightmare for lots of Australians. If you go out and speak to most young people around this country, they will tell you it is one of the biggest challenges that they face, even in my state of Tasmania, where housing prices are much lower than they are in other parts of the country.

This tax reform issue is not just about raising revenue; it is about fairness and equality. It is about using the levers of the tax system to have a better country, to get better outcomes for all Australians, not just for the wealthy, not just for the property sector which wants to keep perverse incentives in place like negative gearing. We have argued for a long time that we should remove or phase out negative gearing over time. We have argued that we need to get rid of capital gains tax and phase that out, remove those incentives on new property purchases so we can actually have a fairer society and a fairer country.

We do not believe the scare campaign of the government that—pardon the pun—the roof is going to fall in or the sky is going to fall in. This is something that many respected economists around the country argue for. I remember arguing this same point at the press gallery, around this time last year. I am very pleased to see that the Labor Party are adopting a policy going into this federal election to back-in negative gearing and the removal of the capital gains tax. I just wish that they would spend more time out on the hustings talking about the importance of removing negative gearing and capital gains tax. Instead, they seem obsessed with muckraking, throwing mud at the Greens over preference deals.

Of course, what we have seen is the big distraction this week around the Senate voting reform. We were simply trying to get some simple democratic reforms, giving people the choice to direct their own preferences in a Senate election. How much easier could it be? This is the problem: until the Labor Party actually get on with selling their tax plan—and the same for the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull—then we are not really going to have a debate in this country, are we? So I would urge my Labor Party colleagues in this chamber, to actually get out there, be an opposition and start selling their negative gearing policy. The Greens led them to this position, and I am glad that we played that effective role. Let's see them actually get out there and sell it.

Now, I will make some points about multinational tax avoidance laws and disclosure of people with incomes over $100 million. I was sitting in your chair, Mr Acting Deputy President, when that bill went down in this place. Labor put up a few voters. They did not even call a division, they let it go to the keeper—it was gone—multinational tax avoidance transparency was gone. We brought it back for debate. We got it in here and in the end we made a judgement that we could get an outcome for all Australians, that high-income earners—over $200 million—would have to disclose their tax.

I am very pleased to say that in the next week we will see those figures come through. It will be a really good thing that we have a good outcome. We also have much broader multinational tax avoidance laws that we worked with the coalition on and which Labor ended up supporting after all of their huff and puff in this place. So we got a really good outcome. But let me say this very clearly: there were no tax transparency laws in this country until the Greens got them on the agenda.

With the aged pension—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You dodged it!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We stood up to get the poorest Australians an increase in the aged pension—Senator Cameron, through the Acting Deputy President—while Labor backed-in middle-class welfare. We reversed John Howard's reforms, which we opposed at the time they were brought in, and got an increase to the aged pension for the least wealthy—the ones who need the safety net the most in this country. We have fought hard for superannuation concessions that change the way that superannuation is taxed in contributions in this country, and I hope also that Labor watches our policies very closely in this space and adopts them as well.

We have fought as hard as anyone against a GST increase, believing it to be a lazy tax—a regressive tax. We have fought hard to remove the diesel fuel rebate—more perverse incentives that supports wealthy mining companies. We have voted with our feet on so many issues in this place. And let's not forget probably the biggest tax reform that we have seen this country—literally in a generation and in a decade—and that was the pricing of carbon. That was the biggest tax reform this country has seen in well over a decade, and this coalition government ruthlessly and cynically campaigned on removing it for their own short-term political purposes. We lost $18 billion in revenue by taxing polluters and we were a global laughing stock when we walked away from taking action on mitigation of dangerous climate change, which we are now seeing every day around us—all for the short-term political power grab of the coalition. They have yet to replace that revenue, or a decent scheme that tackles emissions in this country.

We have pushed hard for the taxation treatment of discretionary trusts. That would raise $3.3 billion in revenue. We have pushed hard for a millionaire's tax—a super-rich tax—of an additional five per cent above current tax rates. We have worked hard for small business, to get small business concessions. I noticed that Labor did support the small business package when it came in, but what was adopted in this place was our policy going into the 2013 election—a cut for small business—for new concessions to help small businesses get on their feet.

With my last minute to go, it would be remiss of me if I did not point out that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are both keen to spend an extra $30 billion that we do not have on warships and weapons under the defence white paper. That will remove the surplus from forward estimates, without any analysis of where else that money could be going: to schools, to hospitals, to policing or to productive infrastructure. There is so much more that we could do with $30 billion than having a national debate about a defence industry policy dressed up as a defence white paper. Thirty billion dollars is a lot of money, especially when we do not have a budget that is balancing. I do not think that debate has been had, but it is absolutely essential that we do—and the Greens will continue to lead on that. If that is what it takes, we will be the ones who will be the real opposition in this country and the ones who have ideas on reform around tax. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tempting as it is to take the bait on that last contribution, I will steer well clear of it. I just hope that those remarks receive sufficient publicity so that the electors of Australia can pass judgement on them at the time of the next election.

What I do want to put on the record is a comment from an article by the esteemed Saul Eslake, where he quotes Machiavelli:

… there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; …

That really is a summation of where we are in this tax debate. Really, the Turnbull government cannot put a foot forward, they cannot put a foot backwards, without stepping in some quite smelly manure. They are unable to put up a coherent policy in respect of tax, so we may well ask, 'Why is that?'

The answer goes back to the 2014 budget, when they attacked the Australian population with the Best Day of My Life, the cigars and the glass of wine, the feet on the balcony. They celebrated all night long, and then when the media and the electors of Australia got hold of that budget, the government realised that there was not going to be much joy forthcoming. So they got in a bunker and they tried to sell it. The Hon. Joe Hockey turned out not to be a very good salesman. Apart from suggesting that poor people do not drive cars, he careened into every possible corner of the building, blundering his way to oblivion, and is now our esteemed ambassador in Washington.

And we know what happened to the Hon. Tony Abbott. We know now that we had a tremendous period of hope, I suppose, in the Australian population after the formation of the new look government, so to speak: a new Treasurer, a new Prime Minister. The general population that I spoke to were interested. They were thinking: 'There's a new order. No-one liked Tony. The Hon. Tony Abbott is gone and things are looking up.' People used to talk to me in the street about the 'new government'. There was not a new government; they were just rearranging the deckchairs. Quite clearly the government are blundering their way through this whole period of government.

They had a budget in 2015 that no-one can remember. No-one is talking about what happened in the 2015 budget. Now we are trying to prise—it is like prising open a coffin—from them what is in the 2016 budget. No-one seems to know. The Treasurer does a Press Club address and then goes to his local friendly talkback host, who tears strips off him, tears him to pieces on the radio: 'That was a lot of drivel. They were just words. What are you actually going to do?'

This has been going on now for quite some time, and people are getting a sense that not only are the deckchairs being rearranged on this grand ship of state but it is also probably a bit rudderless. The government are really trying to work out, as Machiavelli said, 'Where can I go to find someone I'm not going to upset?' The reality is that that is not the job of government, it is not the job of a Treasurer and it is not the job of a Prime Minister. Their role is not to please everyone in society or every section of society. The Greens can waffle on about their grand plan of not spending on defence and the like, but governments do have clear, straightforward priorities; defence of the nation is one of them. If the Hon. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sticks to his guns and gets every dollar that can be spent in Australia, I do agree that is an area of great public policy. It certainly should be our policy, and we would attempt to do that.

However, what we have is one party that have actually put out what could be called a courageous piece of policy in respect of negative gearing. I know that there are people on the other side who think they can electorally seek advantage from the position of the Labor Party, and they think in their electorate it is a vote winner. Well taxation policy and Treasury policy, if it is only going to be viewed through the prism of what is electorally popular, we are not going to be a very good country. I do not think Paul Keating or any of the great reformers before him actually thought it down to, 'Will this win me votes in this seat?' They had a vision for the country—they had a vision of fairness, a vision of change—and they knew there would be some cost in that. What is bereft in this government is that vision. They are only looking for electoral advantage at every spot. That makes them tentative—they look tentative, they are acting tentative—and so who knows what is going to come out of the 2016 budget? We are not even getting the seasoned leaks that we used to get. We used to get leaks. They had a bit of a dash at the GST. They worked out it was electoral poison, so they ran away from it at 100 miles an hour. They lost their ability to prosecute an argument and a case.

If you look at where you can increase revenue—once you go away from the PAYE taxpayers at $195-odd billion or the corporate taxpayers at $71 billion, then you come back to sales tax and GST at $60-odd billion; the rest of the money that comes in is in very small buckets—you have to go over three or four years to get reasonable, respectable sized savings. If you own up to the fact that PAYE taxpayers are carrying their share of the burden—and through bracket creep they will carry a little bit more of their share of the burden—and if you accept the economic policy that that will be a drag on GDP, then you could probably mount an argument that we need to do something about bracket creep. It is straightforward, it is economics, it would be popular, but are they going to put up that in the budget? We simply do not know.

We know that they are likely to reduce their major supporters' tax rates, and they are not doing a whole lot about conquering the worldwide global problem of transfer pricing and international tax avoidance. The Apples of the world have got it worked out, and it is perfectly legal: no tax in California, you do your R&D there; 12½ per cent or whatever in Ireland, that is where your headquarters are; the Cayman Islands are where you base the stuff that is sold out of Australia. Make no money in Australia, transfer to the Cayman, back to Ireland—they have got it all worked out perfectly. But that is not helping our situation here, where we all have lots of these things, these gadgets. They should be taxed appropriately. There is no look in that corner. So what are they going to do? I am waiting with great interest to see this set of budget papers, to see what they are actually going to match their rhetoric with. I do not know if there are any hats left that you can pull a rabbit out of. You really do have to take tough decisions, hard decisions. They will not please everybody, and they are very unlikely to be easy to win. You need to prosecute those. We do not see a great deal of that at the moment.

In the last couple of minutes that I have, I would like to put on the record that there is one easy free kick for any government—that is, scrutinise the expenditure. Anybody who follows a number of the committees' work around this parliament would realise that there is a lot of money expended through various departments. One small example of this is that approximately $98.3 million was allocated in the 2015 budget for expanding the diplomatic footprint of Australia. It is a very noble goal. We should be touting around the world Australia's wares in terms of trade and credentials in terms of being a good international citizen. But when you see figures of up to $10,000 a square metre to fit out an office for 14 people, you have to wonder whether that is a good use of taxpayers' money. You have to wonder what level of delegation allows people to spend enormous amounts of taxpayers' money. It does not meet the pub test. As I said to the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: 'Do you just wave this by your desk? Does it just get delegated? Who actually signs off on the fact that you are paying $18,000 a week, $72,000 a month and $860,000 a year? And then you are going to spend another $7 million fitting it out for 13 people!' The people of Australia, the taxpayers of Australia, do not like profligate spending. That is one area this government could have a look at. (Time expired)

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

I suggest to Senator Gallacher that, if he wants to know what is in the budget and what the government's budget plans are, he should do what I have done for the last 25 years, under governments of all persuasions, and that is turn up on budget night and hear the what the budget is. Never before, in the 25 years I have been here, have a government come out, prior to the budget, and indicated what their budget plan is.

I made a mistake there. Can I correct myself?

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

There was one occasion, Senator O'Sullivan, when a government did come out with a plan outside of the budget—in fact, they legislated for it. Do you all remember, going back in history, the L-A-W law tax policy? When Mr Keating was questioned, he said, 'No, these tax cuts are law—L-A-W law.' And the government legislated them just before an election. The Labor Party, unexpectedly, won that ensuing election, and what was the first thing they did when they got back in? They axed the L-A-W law tax concessions they had given just before the election. This demonstrates, yet again, that you cannot trust Labor at all with money or with tax policy.

I heard Senator Gallacher talking about cutting the expenses of some office somewhere. Senator Gallacher, you might not have been around here when the Labor Party had a building called century house or Centenary House.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was Centenary House.

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

Talk about rorts in the real estate market! That was a building owned by the Australia Labor Party. It was rented to, of all people, the Audit Office. They could not do anything about it. It had a rent escalation clause that far exceeded the CPI at the time. It was the greatest rort in history, and you, Senator Gallacher, are complaining about a few dollars spent on an office somewhere. If you want to enter into this debate, have a look at the Labor Party Centenary House fiasco.

Come budget night, you will see from this government a budget which delivers growth and jobs. That is what it is all about. Senator Bullock was with me last week at the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth hearing on innovation and research, looking at new ways of doing things. We had in person after person congratulating the government—in a non-political way. In fact, a lot of the people doing it were university academics, people who very often are not our greatest supporters. They were all unanimous about how good the innovation statement was and how much it will mean to Australia. They were enthusiastic and very keen to get on board with the innovation statement. So there is an indication of an economic approach which will pay dividends.

I do not have to mention the free trade agreements and what they have done for Australia in helping to build our economy, grow our economy and provide real jobs for Australia. Everybody supported the free trade agreements. The Labor Party took a bit of time to get to the table but, at last, in the end, they came on board. They took the advice of Mr Keating and other senior elders of their party and came on board with the China free trade agreement. Those agreements, over the next 10 to 20 years, will provide an enormous boost to the Australian economy to grow the economy and to provide real jobs for Australians.

I am concerned that the Labor Party—as someone said at question time—have only five policies that they have announced for the election and that they all involve increasing taxes. That is the Labor Party's proposal for our economy—five policies, all increasing taxes. I would urge some of the Labor senators to look at their tax policy. Why am I giving them good advice? I am one of those magnanimous and sincere people, so I will give them some advice. They should look at their tax policy on capital gains tax because, quite frankly, it is going to push up rents and reduce the value of everyone's home. Ask any real estate agent. They should ask some of their mates in the Labor Party—if there are any left in the real estate business—what their policy would do to the value of Australian houses. I am trying to be helpful in a collegiate way because it is good for Australia. I ask them to please have a closer look at what they have announced as their policy for negative gearing. It is something that will cause real problems not only for our supporters but also, perhaps more importantly, for their supporters. So I ask them to, please, have a look at that.

I know the Labor Party has five proposals forward for increasing taxes. I can only remember the other great Labor promise: there will be no carbon tax under a Labor government. And what was the first thing the Labor Party did when it got into office? It introduced a carbon tax, yet another tax, which, regrettably, raised no money. It cost more to implement than it raised.

Here I have given you two examples of Labor's duplicity with tax policy and tax actions. One of them, as I mentioned, was the L-A-W tax cuts that were legislated by Mr Keating before an election and immediately, on winning the election, then legislated down. The carbon tax, after 'There will be no carbon tax under a government lead,' was introduced immediately.

With the coalition you will get an honest portrayal of the economy and of where Australia is going into the future. I will tell you what the coalition's policy and plans for the future are. I can relate it in two words. One is 'growth'—that is, growth of the economy and building the pie. Second is 'jobs'—jobs for all Australians and for those Australians who do not have it.

I see Senator Lambie joining the Labor Party. You better come up to Central Queensland. See all the people out of work because the CFMEU and the Queensland government shut down the mines in that area.

Senator Lambie interjecting—

Why don't you come outside and actually do a bit to help those people get a job? (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a myth—that the Liberals are good managers of public funds—which I would like to question by stating the facts. The Howard Liberal government made a grand total of $59.8 billion from public asset sales: $4.4 billion from airports, $48.6 billion from Telstra and $6.8 billion from Commonwealth Bank.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I draw you to the standing order which requires that senators shall not read their speeches.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Senator Macdonald has been around here long enough to know that that is an absolute nonsense proposal he has put forward. Senator Lambie has been on her feet for I think 15 seconds, and I just think it is absolutely outrageous to put that proposal up.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to rule it as okay for Senator Lambie to continue. I have been here for some time now and I have seen many, many senators refer to notes in front of them. Continue, Senator Lambie.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberals under Mr Howard and Mr Abbott sold $59.8 billion of public assets and paid back $57 billion of Labor debt, leaving us with $10 billion of outstanding bonds and unfunded public service super. How much revenue would have been raised to today had we not sold those public assets? In the last six months, the Turnbull Liberal government has failed to present a tax plan to the Australian people, and that failure has added to the chaos and confusion that the Abbott Liberal government first created for this parliament.

The Liberals like to spread the propaganda that it is the other crossbenchers and I who have made this Senate chaotic and unworkable. In the Senate I have voted for and passed almost 75 per cent of the Liberals' legislation. That is worth $32 billion. With my votes I have protected Australia's poor from $30 billion of Liberals' cuts. The Liberals sacked a Prime Minister and have caused chaos. Everyone knows that the Liberals will increase the GST and tax Australia's poor if they are re-elected as the government.

I have identified an extra $94 billion over 10 years for our budget if only the government had the courage to tax the super-rich. Australia could have a super-rich death tax, a capital gains tax and a financial transactions tax. Just those three new taxes would raise an extra $94 billion over the next decade by targeting the super-rich.

The Liberals try to make us pay more to visit our doctors with their GP co-payments to repair our budget. In the Senate I helped stop that attack on Medicare, and I will do it again and again because the Liberals now want to make Australian women pay more for cancer checks by forcing $650 million of cuts to bulk-billing.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in respect of this matter of public importance: the Turnbull government's abject failure to present a tax plan to the Australian people. We know that the tax process of the Turnbull government is a cause of national concern. You do not have to take my word for that; we have seen in recent times an extraordinary contribution to the national debate here from the chairman of the government's own Board of Taxation—the Board of Taxation being one of the government's key tax advisers. We are now finding that they are openly criticising the government's policy reform processes.

We know, of course, that the Treasurer has had to postpone the Council on Federal Financial Relations. We are seeing an ongoing shambles rolling out before us. We have seen the Chairman of the Board of Taxation, Mr Michael Andrew, come out and talk about what can be described as a chaotic, under-resourced, rushed and secretive government tax reform process. We know that the tax white paper process cost the taxpayer at least $7 million to date on top of wasting the time, effort and money of over 1,000 Australian stakeholders and business organisations. This is a cruel hoax that has been perpetrated on the stakeholders who are interested in what is happening with the reform of our taxation system.

Mr Andrews made the comment:

The government deciding to run the process as an internal process, not through an independent inquiry, has compromised its ability to win hearts and minds.

I think that is a very telling point. He has talked about the fact that hardworking Treasury employees involved in the process are leading to the politicisation of the process because of the fact that the department is taking charge of the review. We have walked away from the orderly process of having a green paper and a white paper. The government has truncated the dialogue that we were supposed to have, and we are now awaiting with bated breath the outcome of the government's internal review. The other thing that Mr Andrew of the Board of Taxation said was:

As a business person, I sit there and shake my head. I say, if this is a No. 1 priority of government then resource it properly.

We have a quite extraordinary contribution in the debate and compelling evidence that this government does not know what it is doing in the vital area of tax reform.

We also saw today the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, tick off another speech at a business forum in Melbourne which contained a lot of words but very few numbers and facts. It was filled with lots of spin and no wins. It is a case of another day and another speech with no tax policy, no economic plan and, most embarrassing of all, no date for our budget. So we must ask: how does the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government intend to fund the country, encourage reform and drive our economy into the future to get the jobs of tomorrow? The government is incapable of reviewing its tax policies. How can it go on to take on the bigger issues?

Today the Treasurer said that the budget should be used to deliver tax cuts to drive innovation. What does he mean by that exactly? Does it mean cutting taxes for services and products that do not exist today? The Prime Minister has said that it is the most exciting time to be alive, but it is not very exciting when you have a government that is leaving Australia more clogged than a bottle of Clag glue! Labor, in contrast, has a clear, costed and responsible plan. We have a plan for housing affordability, superannuation and taxation reform and for more multinationals to pay their fair share of tax. We have a plan to repair our budget so that we can invest in jobs, education and health. We are streets ahead of the government in this area.

Where is the government since the departure of Mr Hockey as Treasurer and Mr Abbott as Prime Minister? We are basically talking about tax processes grinding to a halt as the coalition's infighting and self-interest continue to be their main agenda. It is not good enough for me, it is not good enough for this chamber and it is not good enough for the people of Australia.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am honoured this afternoon to close this debate that talks about tax. I always find it quite interesting, even peculiar, when opposition senators on this side come to the Senate chamber to talk about tax policy and options for reform. It is a good thing and I applaud the Labor Party for suddenly developing a strong interest in the matters of tax policy. It is often said, 'Better late than never,' and I think that is amply true in this particular instance. It is particularly curious that, when Labor was in power for six years, they did not do much talking on tax and they certainly did not do much talking or acting in terms of tax propositions that would foster economic growth and foster job opportunities for the Australian economy. In fact, over Labor's six years, Labor's basic approach on tax was to talk about almost anything else and simply hope that no-one would notice that they were putting taxes up. Nowhere more was that demonstrated than through the Henry tax review—in my view, a considered, thoughtful and detailed piece of work that ended up costing the Australian taxpayer $20 million. So let's ask ourselves: what was it that Labor did with that $20 million exercise known as the Henry tax review? What did the last Labor government do with the findings of that particular tax review report? Senator Williams might recall that Labor sat on the Henry tax review paper for as long as it possibly could and then comfortably ignored almost 95 per cent of the recommendations in that Henry tax review.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bit like your commission of audit.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we go: Senator Gallacher's interjection. Actually, I liked the commission of audit. I absolutely did and you should too. I just want to reflect briefly. This highlights a particularly relevant and important difference in terms of how this government wants to approach the issue of budget management and how Labor wants to approach the issue of budget management. I absolutely sit on the side of the argument that says we need to reduce government spending. I cannot believe that I am sitting on the same side of the debate has Paul Keating. Paul Keating has said that it is important for the government to tackle the issue of government expenditure. But where are Labor senators? Where is the Labor opposition? Why don't you support your former Labor Treasurer? Why don't you support your former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, when he at least can bring himself to the enormity of the task and the enormity of the challenge with all of his experience, and he says very clearly that the challenge for this government—indeed, it would be the same challenge if, heaven forbid, the Labor Party should win the next election—is to reduce the size of government expenditure. 'Why?' I hear you ask, Senator Williams? Because who pays for that ultimately? The taxpayer.

I want to reflect briefly on some commentary that was in The Australian on 5 March 2010 to take us back a little while and look at what was being said about the then Labor government's approach to tax policy. The headline in The Australian on 5 March 2010 says: 'Cabinet splits over tax, tactics'. I will quote briefly from that report. It says:

Several senior Labor sources have confirmed the cabinet differences over Mr Rudd's delay in releasing his promised "root-and-branch" examination by a committee led by Treasury secretary Ken Henry.

The article goes on to say:

Mr Rudd resists the view of senior Labor MPs that it "must be delivered before the budget".

And then says:

Mr Rudd said yesterday he had no timetable for the release of the document ...

It then quotes the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, as saying the following:

"Each thing in its season. We've got to do one thing at a time.

"On the tax system, yep, we've got more work to do, but on the timetable for it, were still working our way through it."

And the media report goes on to suggest that this reluctance to discuss tax was widespread:

Senior government sources said that, behind the scenes, no one in the government was talking about the Henry review, despite the promises of a "root-and-branch" examination of the tax system. Others described the Henry tax review, which Mr Rudd started, as being "as popular as a dead fish"—

Don't believe me, Senator Gallagher; it was in The Australian newspaper. You can faithfully trust what was written in The Australian newspaper on 5 March 2010.

In the brief minute that is available to me, I think it is important to get an important set of facts on the table. To date, Labor has promised taxes that will raise around $8.16 billion over the forward estimates, but, at the same time, has promised to spend $44 billion over that same time frame. To date, Labor has promised to raise $8 billion but spend $44 billion. From the tax changes it has proposed so far, Labor has already promised to pay for general budget plans, budget consolidation and unspecified health policy initiatives, and has already promised to fund unspecified spending initiatives, childcare reform and additional schools funding. Labor cannot be believed. To date, it has said it is raising $8 billion but has already promised to spend $44 billion. That might have a ring of familiarity because it sounds very much like the mining tax and the fraud that was committed over regional communities when there was no money to pay for their commitments. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, the time for the discussion has expired.