Senate debates
Thursday, 28 June 2018
Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers
Taxation
3:14 pm
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to the questions asked by Senators Singh, Marshall and Keneally relating to taxation.
Once again we had the example of Senator Cormann audaciously stating that the market will do everything for working people in this country and demanding that we simply accept that taking $80 billion out of government funding for health, for education, for pensions and for family benefits and hand it over to the big end of town—and hand over $17 billion of that straight to the banks—would make for a better Australia. What an absolute nonsense!
This is nothing but a rabble of a government. They are at each other's throats every day of the week. The only plan they have come up with for the future of this country is a plan for smaller government. Well, I can tell you what smaller government means. Smaller government means that the health system will be crushed. Smaller government means that the education system will not have the funding to make sure that we have a world-class education system. Smaller government means that people who need social security support will not get it. That's exactly what smaller government means. And that's exactly what will happen when you take $80 billion out of the public purse and hand it over to the big end of town, where executive salaries will go through the roof, where it will be simply buying back shares to force up the price of shares and making sure that executives get higher pay. That is what it's all about—and we know that it doesn't work.
Then there was this nonsense that we heard today about 'a rising tide will rise all boats'. What a load of nonsense! When you have a government punching holes in the boat of social security, that boat sinks. When you have a government that's punching holes in the health system, that boat sinks. And when you have a government that punches holes in the education system, that boat sinks. What sinks with that is a decent society, a decent Australia, an Australia that was once egalitarian but is nothing like it under this rabble of a government—a government that is too busy carving each other up on climate change and on economy policy and carving each other up over personalities. They are so diverted from focusing on the real issues for ordinary Australian people that they have lost all sense of reality in terms of what's important for working people and working families in this country.
They are teaming up with the Business Council of Australia. Why wouldn't the Business Council of Australia get out there and argue that it's great to hand $80 billion of public money back to big business, back to multinational corporations? The Business Council represent the highest paid chief executives in the country, and the money will go straight back to chief executives in higher pay. Why wouldn't they support this proposition? Why wouldn't they be saying, 'Give us more small government and we'll take higher wages and higher executive salaries'?
Here we have a government that does what Senator Cash was doing—infiltrating all areas of the Public Service and appointing people in the Public Service that will look after the interests of the Liberal Party. We don't have an independent Public Service anymore. We've got a Public Service infiltrated by Liberal nominees who look after the Liberal Party. They are doing the same thing with Brian Loughnane and Andrew Bragg, the executive director of the Business Council of Australia—straight from the Liberal Party into the Business Council. There is absolutely no understanding of the key issues facing the Australian public and no understanding of what is good for Australia. They are only looking after themselves and the big end of town. (Time expired)
3:20 pm
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The undermining of Mr Shorten is now in full swing, as witnessed by the contribution we just heard, because Mr Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition, is unequivocally on the public record as saying that company tax cuts do flow through to the community. So Senator Cameron's contribution this afternoon has been a complete repudiation of that which Mr Shorten has said on the public record. Let me quote Mr Shorten:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
So when Senator Cameron seeks to assert to the unwitting people of Australia that cutting company tax just goes to line other people's pockets—namely, company directors'—he is either deliberately misleading the Australian people or is clothing himself in complete ignorance and, of course, is in defiance of what his own leader said. Indeed, former Prime Minister Ms Gillard also was on record as saying:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth.
The current shadow Treasurer, Mr Bowen, said that cutting company taxes was 'a Labor thing'. And guess who's sort of been saying that in recent times? The would-be Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese. He is starting to sidle up to business, knowing the importance of having a good relationship with the corporate sector, because ultimately they are the ones that provide the jobs within the community.
Senator Cameron is not right very often. On this occasion, when he says that there's a disproportionate benefit flowing from these company tax cuts, he's right—but not in the way that he so misleadingly asserted. Indeed, Professor Richard Holden, Professor of Economics at the UNSW Business School, has said that benefits to workers tend to flow disproportionately from company tax cuts—now listen to this—to women, to young people and to the less skilled. That is whom company tax cuts benefit.
So why is it that the current leader of the Labor Party is so maniacally opposed to delivering this support to women, young people and the less skilled? Because the Labor Party, when they are in extreme socialist mode, want to keep people on low wages. They want to keep them as victims, because then they can control them, courtesy of government; whereas the Liberal Party approach, the coalition approach, is to say to people on low incomes and whose jobs are vulnerable: 'We don't want to keep you down. We actually want to lift you up. Rather than having you as victims, we want to make you victors.' That is why delivering these company tax cuts does deliver more jobs and higher wages—something recognised by Labor leader after Labor leader. And, what's more, these benefits flow disproportionately in favour of women, young people and the less skilled.
So it will be very interesting to see how Senator Keneally, who might be taking note later on, is going to debunk that which the professor from the UNSW school of business economics has so rightly pointed out. They are the benefits. They are the recognised benefits. That is why Mr Shorten, Ms Gillard, Mr Bowen, Senator Penny Wong and Dr Andrew Leigh have—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
The list of Labor Party people supporting company tax cuts, for the benefits I have outlined, is as long as my arm. But, today, for cheap political reasons, because they have decided to run the politics of envy rather than the politics of lifting people, rather than saying, 'We share your aspiration and we will assist you in achieving your aspirations,' they want to play the card of envy. (Time expired)
3:25 pm
Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I also rise this afternoon to take note of questions asked of Senator Cormann by Senators Keneally, Singh, and Marshall. Day after day we see the Liberals and the coalition here in this place arguing for the Liberal good, not for the common good, which is really a misnomer of a campaign designed to paper over the public interest in this country in favour of massive $80 billion corporate tax cuts. What we saw from Senator Cormann was a complete failure to address the question asked by Senator Keneally about the false campaign that's being run to try to build a mandate for these ridiculous corporate tax cuts.
Centre Ground is clearly running what can be seen to be an astroturfing campaign that has no real community sentiment behind it—their campaign called the Common Good in support of corporate tax cuts in South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. Senator Cormann did not address, in any way, Senator Keneally's question, which was seeking to address the BCA's decision to use a front group to run a phoney grassroots campaign. These are the efforts to which the coalition and the BCA are prepared to go to try and mount a pre-election campaign in support of something that is clearly not in Australia's national interest. What we have here is an $80 billion big-business company tax cut that will drive, as interjections have shown, a large structural hole in our budget. This would leave our nation bereft of opportunities to fund future government service delivery and would not guarantee new investment in really critical areas of our nation.
As the opposition has argued in relation to alternative ways of stimulating the economy, we've seen recent modelling from the Melbourne Economic Forum by Janine Dixon which shows that, compared to a company tax cut, an investment subsidy is actually up to three times more effective as a stimulus to investment. And this was certainly shown during the global financial crisis when Labor gave tax breaks for business-level investment. That significantly boosted growth in our nation at a critical time. Instead, we see false economics coming from those opposite who are more interested in the Liberal good and giving support to their mates at the big end of town.
It really is a wonder to me that Senator Cormann could not answer Senator Keneally's question about whether there were and are any shared tactics between the BCA and the coalition regarding this BCA campaign. And it's very, very clear that there is, given that the BCA has appointed a former Liberal Party director to its new political advisory board, has also hired former political party director Andrew Bragg as its executive director for members and has established this new front group to create a false idea of there being a real grassroots campaign in this nation.
When the Labor Party go out campaigning on these issues, we will be in step with real communities and real people, knocking on doors around this nation, raising our real concerns and having real conversations with Australians about what a false and ridiculous idea this $80 billion tax cut to Australian big business really is.
3:30 pm
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to have a little game with Senator Pratt and Senator Keneally and ask them this question. It's like a game of 'Who am I?' or, perhaps, 'Who said this?' I will ask Senator Pratt who said this:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth.
Who said that? Let me give you a three-part suggestion on who it might be. It could have been Malcolm Turnbull, it could have been Senator Mathias Cormann and it could have been Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard. There you are—that should make it easy for you to pick who said that. Actually, it's a trick question, because all three of them said that. Ms Gillard, in March 2012, said:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth.
Let me give you more:
... reducing company tax ... promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Who said that? No answer? I can give you the answer to that one: that was the Labor shadow Treasurer, Mr Chris Bowen, who wrote a book about it. He said:
... reducing company tax ... promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Here we are. My friends opposite haven't done very well in answering those questions, so how about these:
... cutting the company tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment.
… … …
More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
Who said that?
Senator McGrath interjecting—
Yes, you've got it right, Senator McGrath: it was none other than Mr Bill Shorten, in August 2011. So there we go. If Mr Shorten said, in August 2011, 'Cutting the company tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages,' then I ask the next Labor speaker, whom I guess is Senator Keneally: what changed Mr Shorten's mind? What changed Ms Gillard's mind when she said, 'If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth'? They're her words; they're not mine; they're not Senator McGrath's. They are the words of the Labor Prime Minister.
Mr Shorten—I've given away the answer before I've asked the question—said this:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-1980s, knows part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
That's what Mr Shorten said; not me, not Senator McGrath. Not even Senator Cormann said that. That was Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Labor Party, who is now saying, 'Corporate tax cuts are bad for Australia.' I'll even hang around for a little while to hear Senator Keneally explain to me why those three Labor luminaries—and there are many others as well—were so precise and clear and emphatic and dogmatic about the fact that cutting company tax increases productivity, improves wages, creates jobs and drives growth. They are very clear; there's no misunderstanding of those words. And I'll wait around for a minute or so of Senator Keneally's speech to let her tell me why those three Labor luminaries said that just a couple of years ago and suddenly now they are stating the exact opposite position. I'd be fascinated to hear the answer.
3:35 pm
Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I'm so honoured that Senator Macdonald is going to stay in the chamber and listen to me. Thank you so much. I can dispense with these issues rather quickly. He cites a time when we were debating company tax. Who was opposing it at that time? The coalition opposed it. That's right. So let's just get that on the record right there. They opposed it, they opposed it, they opposed it. Secondly, the scale of multinational tax avoidance is now much clearer than it was back in 2011, and Labor has taken strong steps to address that. Thirdly, I'll tell you what's different between 2011 and now: the debt run up by this coalition government—half a trillion dollars. Remember when we used to have a debt and deficit emergency, when Tony Abbott was running around as though it was somehow important to solve the debt and deficit problems? Well, this government has run up the debt, crashed through half a trillion dollars. That's the ceiling they've got to be proud of.
That's the problem we have right now: the $200 billion in tax giveaways from this government—their corporate tax cut and their personal income tax cuts. They wanted to give money to multinationals and millionaires and take money off pensioners, students and working people. They came in here and voted against a personal income tax cut that was double what they were offering for working people—and they've got the hide to come in here and make an argument about corporate tax cuts! No wonder Senator Macdonald has left the chamber: he is ashamed to be part of a government that has run up the debt, that has run up the deficit, when they came to office saying they were going to get the budget under control. In fact, they have sent it spiralling out of control.
What is their prescription now for a budget that is in perilous circumstances, whereby in a best-case scenario, under their projections, we will get to a sliver of surplus? We will not be paying down debt for years. We put the budget in a very precarious position under their plan by going for a big corporate tax cut and a big tax cut for millionaires—the big end of town. Of course that is who the Business Council of Australia is representing when they run this fake, phony, grassroots campaign, commonly called astroturf. Astroturf, of course, is fake grass. An astroturf campaign is a fake, phony grassroots campaign. The Business Council of Australia have form on this. They ran their For the Common Good campaign in the South Australian state election. If you went to the For the Common Good website, if you went to their Facebook page, you would not see any Business Council of Australia logo or identification. You'd have to dig right down into the fine print, find Centre Ground, find them there, work out who their directors were. By the way, their directors included Andrew Bragg, a former Liberal Party director, now hired by the Business Council of Australia as an executive director. He is a director of Centre Ground, and Centre Ground is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Business Council of Australia.
The South Australian election was on 17 March. When did the Business Council of Australia disclose its ownership of Centre Ground? When did they own up to the fact that they were really behind the For the Common Good campaign? It was on 27 March. That is not transparent. That is not being up-front. That is running a shifty, underground campaign through a front group, trying to pretend that somehow there is a groundswell of support from the Australian community for corporate tax cuts.
This is not a grassroots campaign. This is a campaign being run by the business elite of Australia masquerading as something out there 'for the common good'. Well, now they're out there running this For the Common Good campaign in Queensland and in Tasmania. Surprise, surprise: we have by-elections in these two states, and they're out there trying to pretend there is a groundswell of support in these states for an $80 billion tax giveaway to big business. If you were a resident in one of these states and happened to wander onto social media, Facebook or Instagram and saw an ad that they were running on YouTube, you'd be very hard-pressed to know that this was actually a political message coming from the Business Council of Australia—the mates, the campaigning arm, of the Liberal Party. For the Common Good are out there raising $26 million from their corporate members to run this fake, phoney grassroots campaign. Well, this is not for the common good. An $80 billion tax giveaway to big business is not for the common good; it is not good for working people. The only good that the For the Common Good campaign is serving is the good of the Liberal Party.
Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator Keneally. I remind senators it's not appropriate to reflect on senators, whether they are in or out of the chamber.
Question agreed to.