Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

S (—) (): I move:

That the Senate agrees that corporate super profits taxes could offset the cost of providing cost-of-living relief, including the provision of free childcare, truly free public education, abolishing student debt and putting dental and mental health into Medicare.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to this really important question of choices. We have a government that's crying poor and that's warning us of impending cuts and an austerity budget come October, and yet it is refusing to raise much-needed revenue that could be used to address the cost-of-living crisis. It is persisting with Mr Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy, which would of course benefit men more than women and would deliver an approximately $9,000 tax cut to the likes of Mr Clive Palmer, who doesn't need the help in that regard, although he certainly needs help in other ways. This government is persisting in wasting money in giving tax cuts to people who don't need the help, at the same time saying to Australians: 'No, we can't afford to increase JobSeeker. No, we can't afford to make child care free. No, we can't afford to put dental or mental health care into Medicare.'

Well, it's bollocks. It's nonsense. People expect better from this new government. We are in a cost crisis on top of the climate crisis that we are in, and people expect the government, rather than throwing its hands up and pointing its finger at the RBA, seemingly not able to do anything about it, to take action and deliver cost-of-living relief for them, not tax cuts to the very wealthy, who don't need it.

So that's our first bone of contention: $244 billion over a decade for the stage 3 tax cuts. That could be used to make child care genuinely free. Never mind the CCR and CCB rebates that currently exist and that are incredibly complicated and a disincentive for people to work them out in the first place. We could actually make it free. That's what we had in the pandemic. People know it can be done. It really helped. Yet this government isn't proposing to do that. They should be, and they're not. While they're at it, they should be paying early childhood educators a decent wage, for that matter, and that's something we'll keep pushing for as well. Those stage 3 tax cuts could fund free child care.

Those tax cuts could also fund putting dental care and mental health care into Medicare. We have a universal healthcare system, yet it doesn't cover your teeth or your brain. The last time I checked, your teeth and your brain are part of your body. You should be able to go to a dentist. You should be able to go to a mental health care specialist and get the help you need when you need it, using your Medicare card. That's what universal healthcare provision is about. I think that's why we pay taxes—so we can have those services provided to us as citizens of this wealthy nation.

We took many of these proposals to the election, so of course as a budget integrity measure we asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to cost them. We think it's important than when you make a promise as to how you can improve people's lives you show how you can raise the revenue to pay for it. So we've done that, and we have all the figures, and I'll bedazzle you with them now. Free child care, which I mentioned, is about $9 billion a year. It's quite a big spend. But it enables women to return to the workforce, which pays economic dividends beyond the amount it costs and which is the right thing to do. If you want women's workforce participation to increase and if you want real equality in the workplace as well as in the home—which is something we're also pushing for—then make child care free. It is good for the kids. They get fantastic-quality early childhood education, and we know that at that stage of their development that early input is crucial and really sets kids up to be good learners as they go through the schooling system. And it's good for the parents. It's good for our economy. It's good for gender equality. Let's make child care free and let's pay early childhood workers the wage they deserve for the crucial role they play in educating the next generation.

We campaigned on free public education and making university and TAFE free like it used to be, like many of the people in this chamber received. And I'm making sure that public schools could be fully funded. That would cost about $5½ billion every year. Again, these are quite substantial figures. But, importantly, we can pay for them by axing those stage 3 tax cuts for the very wealthy, who don't need the help. We could pay for them in myriad other ways. A corporate superprofits tax is another excellent revenue-raising measure. And the proposal we put to the election that the Parliamentary Budget Office costed would raise $286 billion over 10 years. That's what the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed for our corporate superprofits tax. That could fund the provision of dental care and mental health care through Medicare, which would cost only about a third of that, and that could cover the cost of making child care free.

These are the decisions governments make. It's very interesting to see who this government is making wait for help and who it's prepared to hand out money to, hand over fist, without any questions asked. They're making people wait for free child care. It's not their policy, although it's something they have said they might consider in future terms if they're re-elected. Why wait? It should be a principal commitment, and you could actually fund it if you raised the revenue by axing those stage 3 tax cuts and by placing a corporate superprofits tax on some of our very wealthy corporations, who are increasing their wealth—during a pandemic—at record rates. In fact, figures released earlier this week show that the share of corporate profits is the largest it's been in 70 years. Corporate profits are at a 70-year record high, while we're in a cost-of-living crisis! The inequity of that and the widening gap between ordinary citizens and big corporations and billionaires is obscene. It cannot stand. So let's raise that revenue by making those big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share so that we can provide the services that people need and rely on, the services that should be provided in a wealthy nation like ours.

We have a few other suggestions for revenue raising. We're in a climate crisis as well as a cost-of-living crisis, and yet this government—and the last, for that matter—paid out $11 billion every year in cheap fuel and accelerated depreciation to fossil fuel companies. We call them fossil fuel subsidies: freebies and perks that other people don't get. That's $11 billion a year; in fact, over the decade, it's $117 billion. These companies are making record profits and paying zero tax. One in three of them pays no tax. So they're not only getting $117 billion in free public money; they're also doing us the lovely favour of cooking our climate even more. This government, in our name, is paying these fossil fuel companies to pollute and make the climate crisis worse as the inequality crisis is worsening. It makes no sense.

The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have said they'll look for savings. Cut those fossil fuel subsidies. There's $117 billion over 10 years going to big companies who don't need the help. Their bottom lines are very healthy indeed. They shouldn't be getting help to pollute this beautiful planet when we are in a climate crisis; when we should be transitioning to clean, renewable energy that will create jobs and not make the problem worse. Cancel those fossil fuel subsidies. Have a corporate superprofits tax. Axe those stage 3 tax cuts. These revenue-raising measures could allow government to address the cost-of-living crisis within our budgetary means. Increase JobSeeker so that people below the poverty line don't have to choose between paying their rent and getting their kids a school uniform, between paying the rent and having some fresh vegetables on the plate at dinner time. These are the choices that people are making because this government, and the last, wasted so much money by giving it to fossil fuel companies and proposing to give it to the very wealthy with those stage 3 tax cuts that kick in in a year or so. Yet the government is crying poor and saying how broke it is. Adopt these revenue-raising proposals that can achieve multiple objectives by actually servicing the community and not making the climate crisis worse.

We don't stand alone in these suggestions. In fact, just yesterday the UN Secretary-General, Mr Guterres, said that governments should be taxing excessive oil and gas profits. That was music to our ears because that's what we've proposed for many a year. These concepts are becoming normalised and socialised, and many, many countries and leaders are calling for it. Mr Guterres says:

It is immoral for oil and gas companies to be making record profits from this energy crisis on the backs of the poorest people and communities and at a massive cost to the climate …

He also says:

… this grotesque greed is punishing the poorest and most vulnerable people, while destroying our only common home …

So Mr Guterres's proposal—one that the Greens took to the last election—is that we tax the superprofits of oil and gas and coal companies. It is obscene that those companies are making record profits when we're in an inequality crisis; it is obscene that public money is being used to fuel their profits, which are worsening the climate crisis; and it is obscene that this government says it's broke and can't do anything about it. That is not at all what people voted for, and they expect this parliament to deliver for them.

I want to mention housing as one of the other things that is contributing to a real squeeze in people's cost of living and skyrocketing rates of homelessness. We know now that almost 450,000 women over the age of 45 are on the brink of homelessness. Women in that age bracket are the fastest growing cohort of people without a home. We know that young people have given up on the idea of ever buying their own home. They're now facing a rental increase that they can't cope with either. This is a serious problem. Rather than raise the revenue in the ways I just outlined, by making big businesses and billionaires pay their fair share, the government is crying poor and proposing only a scintilla of new build social homes. I think they're proposing 30,000 homes. Of course that's better than nothing, but it is nowhere near what the scale of the problem requires. We took to the election a plan to build a million homes over 20 years. That would wipe the social housing waiting list, which is 50,000 people in my home state of Queensland, and, of course, far greater across the whole nation. We could wipe that homelessness list, and we could build beautifully designed and climatically appropriate homes that are accessible for people of all sorts of different abilities, and that are cheap to run because they're powered by renewable energy. That would mean that no-one in this country would go without a roof over their head.

The government can't cry poor when it's giving away $224 billion to people that don't need the help, when it's giving away $117 billion to big coal and gas companies to make the climate crisis worse. It can't say that it doesn't have enough money to fix homelessness and the housing crisis—and that's not even to mention changing those negative-gearing and capital gains tax settings, which Labor used to have the guts to talk about. Sadly, it seems to have lost all spine in the last election and didn't dare mention it. We're proudly saying we think those perks should be phased out. They are worsening the housing crisis. They are inflating the bubble. They are making it harder for people to own their first home. How dare taxpayer money be used to subsidise the profits of people who are accumulating more homes than they will ever need when some people don't have any at all! How dare our taxpayer money be used for that!

So we could address homelessness. We could make child care free. We could put dental and mental health care into Medicare. We could make university and TAFE free again. We could do these things if we raised the revenue by making those big corporations pay their fair share; by not giving those free billions to fossil fuel companies, which are cooking the planet anyway and not paying tax; and by cancelling those stage 3 tax cuts, which are going to the wealthy, who don't need the help. The budget is about choices, and governing is about delivering for the community. It's not about delivering for the people that make political donations to your re-election campaigns. And I will be urging the government, as will all of my party members, to think about these choices as the first budget gets closer and closer.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this motion from Senator Hanson-Young. The Australian economy is still growing. We know that we've got significant challenges out there. The economy is still growing. We read every single day in the paper that high inflation is impacting people all across the country. The most recent number is 6.1. Now, obviously, the result of that is significantly increasing interest rates, and that has an impact on every single person across our country. One full per cent between June and July: that's huge when that gets applied to every good and service that people are interfacing with. We know this, and we know that the Reserve Bank has been clear that there's more to come. So, yes, we need to do something. We need a plan. There needs to be things done to make it easier on the people across our country to cope with this economic scenario. These rate rises hurt every single person—their mortgages. The numbers were quoted in this house earlier today and yesterday, and no doubt will be quoted again and again as they keep increasing.

The causes of this inflation are primarily, but not exclusively, global. We've inherited nine years of mess, nine years of debt—debt to the tune of a trillion dollars—and there's nothing to show for it. In nine years, there were opportunities to pursue renewable innovation: things that would have strengthened our country, that would have made us more prepared for an economic downturn and that would have made us better prepared for global influence—things that we cannot influence terribly well when they happen but which we can prepare for. We could have built a stronger economy, but we didn't do that.

Those opposite, when they were in government, wasted nine long years. They left workers worse off, in particular. The former finance minister Mathias Cormann said that they were intentionally making workers worse off by making low wages 'a deliberate design feature' of the Australian economy. Now, that was a shameful thing to do. It is a shameful thing that has been done to the workers in this country—the workers who have contributed, who work hard to try and put food on the table and pay their rent or pay their mortgage. They've just been so totally disrespected over the last nine long years.

The coalition left us in an economic mess, through a decade of domestic failure on skills, on supply chains and on energy. In the skills area, they just gutted some of our excellent training facilities and our whole system of building the next generation of young people trained in the skills of the future, trained for the jobs of the future, as our skills mix changes as industries change. Nothing has been done to prepare for that, which is a disgrace. We now have a skills shortage that we didn't need to have. Some foresight, some planning, would have addressed that. But, no—we did not see that.

So we do have a plan to tackle these issues. The Albanese government has a plan to tackle the economic crisis that was left to us by those opposite, and the Australian people endorsed that plan in May at the election. As the Treasurer laid out earlier, we have a convergence of challenges facing us the likes of which comes around once in a generation. It's a once-in-a-generation challenge that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We have an opportunity, and we're going to take it. It's the opportunity to build a better future: to make sure that people can get good, solid, well-paying jobs that are sustainable, so that they can see a future and are not grappling from day to day, from month to month—so that they actually can look with hope towards the future.

Our plan started very early on with us ensuring that the lowest-paid workers in our economy got a pay rise of 5.2 per cent. Now, it's not enough, but that is a huge leap forward and the first time in a long time that those people have had any sort of sense of hope about where their wages are going—that they are not constantly going backwards but are starting to catch up.

The audit of rorts and waste that's being conducted by the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer is going to go through that budget from March, line by line, and unpack all of the waste and all of the terrible decisions that were made that do nothing to build our country—nothing. We will ensure that spending is focused clearly on building value and building a better future and is not spent on buying votes or giving money to your mates. That's not how we are going to behave. That is not how we intend to manage our budget.

So, importantly, we have a plan to lift the speed limit on the economy and stop the decade of stagnation that we've seen. Firstly, we will help everyone with the cost of living by doing a couple of key things. Now, child care is obviously a critical issue. People's ability to go to work is impacted significantly by the child care that they can find and the child care that they can afford. So one of the things we will be doing is cutting the cost of child care for 1.2 million families so that they can work out their family budget, have the children in child care, know that they can afford it, go and build their careers, and engage in some of the great training opportunities that we will be bringing forward—so that they can build a future for their family.

We're also cutting the cost of medicine by $12.50 a script. Medicine is a really important aspect of people's budgets, and we know that, when faced with a choice about what they're going to drop when there isn't enough money to put food on the table, pay the rent and pay the bills, people will often drop their medication, which means that their health is significantly impacted and sometimes spirals into more serious health problems. So cutting the cost of medicine will address that as well.

We'll ensure that wages grow over time by supporting decent wages in the care economy and by investing in the industries that are going to deliver secure and well-paid jobs. We'll invest in the skills necessary. We'll be working with business and with unions to ensure that businesses can hire the people they need and that Australians are trained for these new industries that are coming forward, for the opportunities that we really clearly see—opportunities in renewable energy, obviously. Certainly, in my home state of South Australia, we're all very excited about the hydrogen future that may be available to us, and there's an awful lot of work going on there that we're very proud of.

We're also going to fix our supply chains and deal with the supply side of an inflation challenge by investing in cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy. And, as I've said a couple of times this week in this chamber, our plan for our energy grid, our plan for renewables and our plan to lower the cost of energy for households are all on foot. These things are going to make a big difference. They're not only going to create jobs; they're not only going to put us on the map in terms of innovation; they're also going to deliver solid future jobs, well-paid jobs, for people.

Turning to tax reform, our priority, our significant priority at the moment, will be to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax here in Australia. Multinational companies operating across borders are far too able to shift their profits to low- or no-tax jurisdictions to avoid paying tax in countries like Australia. These practices have become more sophisticated, as companies use intangible assets such as intellectual property and hold them in low-tax jurisdictions. The rapid growth of the digital economy has completely exacerbated this issue. As the Treasurer referred to earlier today, one of the key things that we'll be doing is supporting the OECD's two-pillar solution of a global 15 per cent minimum tax to ensure that some of the profits of the largest multinationals, particularly digital firms, are taxed where the products or services are sold. This is going to assist with our budget repair, and it will help level the playing field for Australian businesses, who are far too often negatively impacted because a multinational or an overseas based company can do exactly this and Australian companies are not able to—nor should they want to. We should be paying our taxes and we should be proudly paying our taxes. But our taxes should not be creating an extra burden on legitimate business activity.

So we have an economic plan, and it's clear, it's deliberate and it's a direct response to the challenges left to us by those opposite—a wasted decade, almost, of coalition governments. Labor's five-point economic plan is calibrated to reduce cost of living, drive productivity growth and expand the capacity of the economy to alleviate supply-side pressures. We will get wages growing so Australians aren't held back or left behind, as I've said, and invest our public money in a way that delivers genuine economic value for Australians. These are the critical points in our economic plan that we will deliver on and will make a difference, and we will do it with transparency and we will do it in conversation and in partnership with businesses, the unions and the community. This is all of us working together. That is what we will deliver.

So we won't be supporting this motion. We've been upfront about the growing challenges facing our economy, including high and rising inflation, rising interest rates, skyrocketing cost of living and $1 trillion of debt. These challenges have been exacerbated by nearly a decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities by those opposite. Our economic plan, as I say, is a very deliberate, direct response to the growing pressures we have been left with. We will continue working hard to provide responsible and permanent cost-of-living relief. These things will be laid out fully in our budget in October as we work through the March budget, find the savings, redirect the money and start to look at how we can improve the lives of people across this country. Our priority, as I said, in tax will be the multinationals. We will work very hard with our international partners and right here at home to deliver on those promises and deliver those savings which we can then turn into opportunities for Australians—opportunities to address our cost-of-living pressures.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I move to address the substance of the motion, I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by Senator Grogan. At the outset I should say I think it's a good thing that Senator Grogan is not supporting a super company profits tax; I think that's a responsible thing for a member of one of the two governing parties in this country to adopt. I commend her in relation to that. But there were two points I think I should rebut in my contribution to this place. The first is the statement that there is nothing to show in terms of the government debt that was incurred during the last term of parliament. The reality is—and the Australian public knows this all too well—that Australia faced the biggest pandemic crisis this nation has ever faced for decades and decades and decades. I'm sure Senator Grogan has met, as I have met, as all senators in this place have met, small businesses, large businesses and, most importantly, employees of those businesses who were kept employed because of the previous government's JobKeeper program. It was absolutely essential in terms of keeping the connection between those employees and their businesses. I'm proud that I served in a government that adopted that as a policy. So it is not correct to say that there was nothing to show for the debt. There were great things to show for the debt, including the fact this country achieved record levels of employment not seen for decades in the aftermath of the major impacts of the pandemic.

The second point I wish to raise—this is a point I will be returning to constantly over this term of parliament—is this concept that there's all this low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked in terms of addressing tax avoidance measures to be mobilised against international multinationals. This shows a lack of knowledge of the measures which have been taken by the Australian Taxation Office over a number of years. The ATO has brought a number of cases addressing this exact issue. All of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked. There is no more low-hanging fruit in this space.

I suggest to Senator Grogan that she attends estimates, when, no doubt, Commissioner Jordan and his team from the ATO will be present, and they will advise you of the magnitude of tax which has been identified—in particular, potential future deductions for loan interest repayments that have been identified as not being legitimate. It runs into the billions of dollars. The ATO has already gone through, with a fine-toothed comb, the largest multinationals and largest companies in this country with respect to those exact issues which you legitimately refer to. But the concept that there's this magic money tree which you're going to be able to go to and pluck the dollars off in this regard is totally misconceived. People listening to this broadcast don't have to believe me; they can look at the results in the next three years. The low-hanging fruit in terms of international transfer pricing has all been picked from the trees. There is no more. I've got a great deal of confidence in the ATO and the work they've done in that regard.

Senator Grogan also mentioned the OECD's project with respect to the minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent. She's right to refer to that. That's an appropriate segue for me to then move to the Greens supposedly fully funded and fully costed corporate super profits tax. I interjected, in a disorderly way, during Senator Waters's speech in relation to whether or not she would refer to the Parliamentary Budget Office costings. I note Senator Waters did not refer to the detail. I've got the detail here. In fact, I've got 500 pages of detail with respect to the costings of the Greens policies. I've got 500 pages of it, Senator Waters.

I believe in truth in political advertising. It's something which I have advocated for over many, many years. In that respect, I believe that if, as the Greens policy says, something is fully costed and fully funded, you should be able to take that on face value and believe it. You should be able to take that on face value and believe that it is fully costed and fully funded. But the reality is that, when you look at the PBO's costings, that is not the case. This isn't my analysis, this isn't Senator Scarr's analysis—this is the PBO's analysis. Let's read what they say. This is in the PBO's summary on page 1 of the 2022 Elections commitment report of July 2022:

The Greens' platform, if fully implemented, would be expected to result in larger deficits …

So how do larger deficits equate to 'fully costed and fully funded'? Fully funded by debt? I don't think people reading the Greens policy statement would assume that, when they said 'fully funded', they actually meant 'fully funded by debt', but this is the result. The report states:

… larger deficits in total over the same period, relative to the PEFO—

the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—

reflecting higher levels of both receipts and payments as a share of GDP. The impact of the Greens' commitments on both receipts and payments are significantly higher than the other major parties.

This is what the PBO says in their own costings. That does not equate to fully costed and fully funded. You shouldn't have higher deficits if it's fully funded. That's a simple proposition. You don't need a PhD in economics to work that out.

Then you move to page 3 of the PBO's 2022 Election commitments report with respect to the Greens 'fully funded, fully costed' policies, and you see the result of the 'fully funded, fully costed' policies. What's it going to lead to? Table 1 on page 3 is headed 'Financial implications of election commitments by party, 2022-23 forward estimates underlying cash, headline cash and fiscal balance basis ($billion)'. Under the Greens, they all go backwards. Each one of them goes backwards.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fully costed and fully funded!

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Greater deficits does not equal 'fully costed and fully funded'. No, Senator Steele-John, this is what the PBO is saying, not me. This is the PBO. In terms of the headline cash balance, this is what they say about the Australian Greens policies. The net impact of coalition election commitments is a positive $1.1 billion. The net impact of the Australian Labor Party's election commitments—headline cash balance—in that period, through the 2022-23 forward estimates, is negative $40.5 billion. The net impact of Greens election commitments is negative 112.1 billion Australian dollars—$112.1 billion! No wonder you didn't mention it, Senator Waters, in your contribution on this debate. That's out of the PBO's work, not mine.

Let's see what the PBO says about the super profits proposition. I am pleased that those opposite in government are not supporting this resolution. These aren't my words; this is the PBO. I've read their work carefully; I have a lot of respect for the PBO and pay tribute to everyone working in the PBO. This is what they say:

There is a very high degree of uncertainty associated with this costing.

I used to be company secretary and general counsel of an ASX listed company. If I put something out into the market and said it was totally costed and fully funded—when you've got $112 billion of community deficits, you've got the PBO talking about a high degree of uncertainty, and there's no safety warning in terms of the Greens' policy document—ASIC would be all over me like a rash. That's why we need truth in political advertising. The PBO says there is a very high degree of uncertainty associated with this costing.

Here's the other thing they say. This is a point which leads on to other observations:

Because do you know what happens when you increase taxes? The people who are investing in capital in this country, which provides jobs to Australians and provides markets to small businesses all over this country, consider their options. They consider their options. Can I tell you that in my previous role in the mining industry, one of my roles was to look at different jurisdictions and whether or not our company should invest in them. One of the things we looked at was the corporate tax rate. Companies have options. They don't have to invest here. They can invest in other countries.

Those in the Greens should consider—and I'm happy to lend it to them—what I'm going to quote from a book I've got, called Basic Economics. It's economics 101. I'll buy you all a copy. This is what it says:

When tax rates are raised 10 percent, it may be assumed by some—

namely the Greens—

that tax revenues will also rise by 10 percent. But in fact more people may move out of a heavily taxed jurisdiction, or buy less of a heavily taxed commodity, so that the revenues received can be disappointingly far below what was estimated.

Funny, that! People actually respond to higher tax rates. They'll invest in jurisdictions with lower tax rates. This has been the economic experience all over the world, from the United States to India to Iceland. I'll quote again from the text:

In Iceland, as the corporate tax rate was gradually reduced from 45 percent to 18 percent between 1991 and 2001—

I note the 18 per cent is higher than the OECD minimal amount which has been negotiated—

tax revenues tripled.

What happened to tax revenues? Did they fall? Did they fall proportionately when the tax rate went down from 45 per cent to 18 per cent? Is that what happened? No, they tripled. The tax revenues—which are paying for schools, for hospitals, for roads, for the mental health care which you talk about and which I care passionately about, and for dental care—tripled. The tax rates came down and the revenues tripled. That's the experience. That's basic economics—economics 101.

There is a deeper issue here, and it is an issue for a centre-right party such as mine and, indeed, for the Australian Labor Party. The deeper issue is this. When we go to elections and the Greens falsely and fraudulently claim that their policies were fully funded and fully costed—when that isn't the case because, if it were the case, you wouldn't have increasing deficits—they are saying to voters at the polling booths: 'You will get free dental care. You will get free mental health care. You will get free child care.' And, on the face of it, this sounds good. It's very tempting, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The only question is: who pays? The introduction of a corporate super tax would drive investment offshore and drive jobs offshore, and people who were considering whether or not they should invest in Australia would take their money somewhere else, invest it there, and provide jobs and prosperity overseas.

I believe that both my party and the Australian Labor Party need to shine a brighter light on the ridiculous, fanciful Greens policies and the potentially disastrous economic consequences for this country. The Greens policies are summarised as 'totally funded, totally costed'. Yet, when you look at the PBO, when you go to the source documents, there is $112 billion of additional debt—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The flying unicorn!

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The flying unicorn! The fairies at the bottom of the garden! And the devastating impact that would have on the Australian economy needs to be considered by every single Australian who voted Greens at the last federal election.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution to this debate this evening, I'm forced and really quite happy to have the opportunity to reflect upon the different state of Australian politics that now confronts us, at the end of these first two weeks of sitting, as opposed to the last sitting before the election.

We have in the chamber tonight excellent new colleagues and comrades in the Greens' cause, such as Senator Allman-Payne—and I want to thank you for a fantastic contribution to this debate, one which grounded it back in substance and detail rather than the rhetorically high points we were reaching just before. We have the opportunity to discuss issues, such as the need to tax big corporations at this moment in time, when they are making such outrageous profits, not because they're doing anything new or good or beneficial but simply because they're taking advantage of the fact that there are global factors at the moment—wars in the world and shortages of food—that allow them to make extraordinary profits, doing exactly the same as they were doing last year.

We also sit in a chamber right now that's being chaired by Dorinda Cox, my colleague from Western Australia, a proud First Nations woman. We have debated, in the course of the week, many pieces of legislation important to the community. And it is the Greens that have taken the initiative this evening, at the end of this sitting period, to put on the agenda of the Senate a rather important question, that being whether these chambers, these houses of parliament, should, at this incredible moment in time—when so many in our community are doing it so tough—proactively take steps to make the rich richer. That's, ultimately, what we are debating tonight. We are only able to do that because of the contribution of a Greens movement, 30 years in the making, supported by tens of thousands of people across the country. Senator Cox sits in the chair this evening because of the work of the Greens WA movement and the work of many great candidates across the country in the run-up to the election.

Before I move to the substance of the debate this evening, I want to place on the record our thanks to the candidates and individuals that played such an important role in the election, without whose contribution this very conversation would not be happening: first of all, our lower house candidates, the fabulous Caroline Perks; in Fremantle, Felicity Townsend; in Curtin, Cameron Pidgeon; in Swan, Clint Uink; in Brand, Heather Lonsdale; in the seat of Burt, Daniel Garlett; in Canning, Jodie Moffat; in Cowan, Isabella Tripp; in Durack, Bianca McNeair; in Forrest, Christine Terrantroy; and in Hasluck, Brendan Sturcke. In Moore we had Mark Cooper. In O'Connor we had Giz Watson, alongside Donna Nelson in Pearce and Adam Abdul Razak in Tangney. Of course, it wouldn't be good not to mention the fantastic support candidates to Senator Cox on the ticket: River Clarke, Simone Collins, Donald Clarke, Jordan Cahill and Alex Wallace.

All of these individuals and their campaign teams gave so much time and energy to our Greens movement throughout the course of the campaign because they understood, as the millions of Greens voters understand, that there is something deeply wrong, deeply broken, at the heart of the major parties. Both sides have now congealed into a centre right lump, unable or unwilling to challenge the vested interests—the mining companies, the gas giants, the coal barons—that for so long have applied pressure on this place, have made donations to the major parties, have lobbied and greased the wheels in this place. And now both sides in this parliament have basically decided on this particular issue, on the issue of whether fairness and justice should be the guiding principle of our taxing contribution system, to give up the conversation.

Let's be really clear about what is happening here: the Australian community believes in fairness. Our community believes in compassion. Our community believes in working together, and from this belief comes a support for a contribution system which sees those that have more, pay a bit more, and those that have less, pay a bit less. That's the basic premise of how we pool our resources to get things done collectively, and it's been the work in principle of Australia for decades. The corporations and the gas companies and the coal barons have worked furiously alongside their millionaire mates to undermine that system to claw back the little bit more they're asked to contribute to the pool for themselves, because they are selfish and greedy. They are selfish and greedy, not wanting for others what they have for themselves.

In the past it has been the role of parties in this place who proclaim themselves to be of the Left to challenge that greed, to call it out, to object to the idea that selfishness is acceptable in public policy. Well, this evening the reality as we sit here tonight is that both parties, the Liberal and Labor parties, are facing a moment in time when so many are struggling, where the cost of education is going up and people are wondering, 'Where is my next meal going to come from? How am I going to pay that bill? How am I going to convince my landlord not to kick me out? How will I keep my kids warm in my car?' At this moment, when it has never been more urgent that we pool our resources and decide to use them in ways that are fair and just, that support people to work together, both of you want to indulge the selfish and the greedy rich, the Clive Palmers and the Gina Rineharts and the Andrew Forrests, who slime around in the background of Australian politics, popping up every now and again to suggest a basics card or a new version of the Indue scheme or to offer their thoughts from on high on how somebody that's getting by on the viciously low level of JobSeeker could better make ends meet. You've decided to get in bed with those people and give them a tax break.

Now, I am not at all surprised, given that they put this idea forward in the first place, that the Liberal Party would be sitting there tonight contributing to this debate, supporting this terrible idea. It was their proposition in 2018. It is, however, so soul-rackingly disappointing that even after the Australian community chucked out the Morrison government with a joy unsurpassed in recent electoral history, even after Labor's primary vote went backwards, the Labor Party sits here tonight proposing to plough ahead with this redistribution of community funds, which, by the way, will cost in just one year almost as much as one year's value of the entire Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. You're going to give back $15 billion in one year to people like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest when instead we could be using it for free child care, to bring dental and mental health into Medicare—to do so many good things together. And why? Because you're too scared to do otherwise.

It really is a flimsiness that you are bringing to the debate tonight, when there is a parliament ready and willing to ensure that those funds remain in the public service, in the public good. But you will instead back selfishness and greed, despite the fact that our community has just voted for fairness and compassion and a collective working together in greater numbers than ever before. It is such a deep disappointment.

Finally, I want to speak directly to this question of a windfall profits tax. Now, this is a proposal put forward and championed by our Treasury spokesperson, Nick McKim, and it is a very, very good idea. It is being backed globally by some of the best minds in socially progressive theory. And, indeed, it is even finding the support in some areas of more traditional economists, purely because it seeks to address an absolute breaking down of the traditional economic theory—a traditional economic theory, by the way, which is completely morally bankrupt. It always has been but now is failing even against its terms of success. Corporations, particularly energy companies, are right now making billions of dollars—not because they are doing any more than they once did. They're not producing more. They're not creating anything. They're engaging in vicious price gouging. Why? Because they can. And who is paying for it? The Australian people are paying for it.

A windfall profits tax gives us the opportunity to bail up people like Gerry Harvey and others, and demand that those resources be put back into the community pool and made available for the collective works and social endeavours that are so urgently needed in this tough time for so many.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great topic to be debating at the end of this Senate week:

That the Senate agrees that corporate super profits taxes could offset the cost of providing cost-of-living relief, including the provision of free childcare, truly free public education, abolishing student debt and putting dental and mental health into Medicare.

This was a proposition that we took to the election that resulted in the Greens having a record vote, electing six more members of parliament to this place. The idea that we should be taxing the very wealthy and using those taxes to fund services that people need and that people want resonates with the Australian community. And it's not a surprise, because we have seen the tax that is paid by the super wealthy in Australia decrease at the same time as we have seen the services provided to Australians decrease in quality over the last—well, for decades, basically, under neoliberal governments. We need to shift this. We need to acknowledge that by increasing taxes; by having a corporate super profits tax; by taxing properly the mining companies, the coal and gas companies, who are making an absolute motza at the moment; by having a billionaire tax to tax the billionaires who made massive profits out of COVID while the rest of us were suffering. We had billionaires like Gerry Harvey doing exceptionally well and making a profit out of JobKeeper.

In particular, we should not be going ahead with tax cuts that are going to reduce the taxes and increase the income of the very wealthy in our society. Why on earth this incoming Labor government, who claims to be speaking for the people, is supporting the previous government's stage 3 tax cuts is beyond me, because the critical figure, which I find astounding, is that the cost of those stage 3 tax cuts to the budget bottom line over the 10 years is over $200 billion. We know that, if that $200 billion was instead being spent in services, in supporting people, it would have a much greater impact on the health of the economy because we know that every dollar that you put in the pocket of somebody on a low income gets spent. If you're putting a dollar in the pocket of somebody who earns over $200,000, the likelihood is that it just gets put away in investments, it gets spent on overseas travel or it gets spent on other things that do not generate the same amount of economic activity as spending that money generates.

If we increase income support, if we increase the income of the lowest people in our society, the people who are absolutely struggling to get by, who are living in poverty—every extra dollar you put in the pocket of somebody who is surviving on JobKeeper at the moment will be spent. It will be spent at the local shops. It will be spent buying basic food, vegetables, clothing and shoes. It will be spent on the absolute essentials of life. We know that spending money in that way is going to make a much greater contribution to our economy than giving tax cuts to the very wealthy, who do not need those tax cuts—who absolutely do not need those tax cuts.

As I said, this was a platform that we took to the election. This resonated with people. The concept of the basics of free dental care and mental health care being included under Medicare so that people could afford to go and get their teeth fixed; the idea of genuinely free education, from child care right through to tertiary education—these are the ideas that resonate with Australian society because we know that they are fair. They are creating a fairer, more just, more sustainable society. And we know that, by doing that, we get healthier people, and it leads to a healthier community for all of us.

These are the sorts of measures that the Australian people want to see, and they are the measures that we can afford to take. We can afford to be taxing the very wealthy—the people who are making a huge amount of money—and to be spending that money on the services that we need and that we deserve.

In the case of income support, it is our duty to be lifting people out of poverty. It is immoral that we, as a society, have a vast number of people—three million families—living under the poverty line. It's a political choice to be leaving them there, living in poverty. Six hundred thousand children in single-parent families are living under the poverty line. We need to take action to increase income support so that that's no longer the case, so that they can afford to be living a decent life and putting food on the table. It is a political choice that we are not. The Greens absolutely and unashamedly will continue to speak up for increasing the taxes on those who can afford to pay, so that we can spend the money on the services that we all need. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Rice. Leave is granted.

Debate adjourned.