Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith:

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

The failure of the Government to categorically rule out changes that limit the use of negative gearing or franking credits, and changing the tax treatment of the family home, demonstrating that the Albanese Labor Government cannot be trusted to not impose more taxes on hard working and aspirational Australians.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whip.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that we're discussing this afternoon reads:

The failure of the Government to categorically rule out changes that limit the use of negative gearing or franking credits, and changing the tax treatment of the family home, demonstrating that the Albanese Labor Government cannot be trusted to not impose more taxes on hard working and aspirational Australians.

At the last election Australians went to the ballot voting on many issues, but central to the voting decision of many Australians was a list of promises that had been made by now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: a promise to provide energy relief; a promise not to increase taxes; a promise to deliver greater transparency and integrity; and promises on superannuation.

But, as we begin this new parliamentary year in 2024, Australian voters have been reminded in the most graphic of ways that these promises now lie in tatters. It might be the Chinese year of the dragon, but it's the political year of broken promises led by Labor and Prime Minister Albanese. I draw the attention of my coalition senators to the presence of some Labor senators: Senator Polley from Tasmania and Senator Grogan from South Australia. What do we know? We know that the most recent decision to change a position, to break a promise, was unanimously endorsed by the Labor government, by the Labor cabinet, by the full ministry and by the caucus. So this is not just about the broken character of Prime Minister Albanese; this is about the broken character of every member of the Labor Party in federal parliament and, indeed, of the whole Labor Party organisation.

A promise to reduce energy prices by $275—abandoned. A promise to deliver a plan to lower interest rates—abandoned. Australians are now having to live with a cumulative effect of 12 interest rate rises. They are living with energy costs. Gas is up by 28 per cent. Electricity is up by 18 per cent in just 15 months. Anthony Albanese gave Australians a clear commitment.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Smith, use the correct title.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister Albanese gave Australians a clear commitment that he would also make no changes to franking credits. One of the last things we did last year was to pass a bill in the Senate that carried those broken promises around franking credits. The broken promise of all broken promises is the decision to renege on the legislated stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts. And it's not just a broken promise. The Prime Minister did not wake up one day and break a promise. He went out to Australians over the summer on 12 separate occasions and did not give them a hint or a glimmer of an idea that on 11 December he had already asked the Treasury—through the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers—to begin work on cost-of-living relief measures. What were those cost-of-living relief measures? They were abandoning legislated tax cuts in the form of the third stage of the three-stage tax reform plan.

Labor wants to talk about the tax initiative itself, and that's fine. But by the end of this year there'll be only one matter on the minds and the lips of Australian voters, and that will be the catalogue of broken promise upon broken promise upon broken promise. So my challenge this afternoon is to Senator Polley from Tasmania and to Senator Grogan from South Australia to rule out changes to negative gearing, changes to taxes on people's homes, changes to franking credits. This afternoon, in your five-minute contributions, you can stand here and rule it out and you can say to your electors, 'I will challenge Prime Minister Albanese to not break another promise in in 2024'—your challenge. Do you accept it?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Smith, address your remarks through the chair.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect that the Prime Minister is sitting on a volume of other broken promises. He is just looking for the opportunity to— (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As usual, we have senators from that side coming in here and wanting to rewrite history and talk about broken promises. But I'm not going to be dissuaded from making the contribution that I want to make in relation to the fact that the Liberals, with the Nationals, want to distract from the position that we have taken to give Australian workers a bigger tax cut than they would have had under the previous government. The position that they've taken, in a very short period of time since the Prime Minister made this announcement with our Treasurer, is quite indefensible and untenable. Let's not forget that their deputy leader, Ms Ley, said that they would roll it back, in government, making 11.5 million Australian workers pay more tax. Now, according to Mr Dutton, they will wave these changes through. But what does that really mean? I don't know whether everyone else has caught up with Nemesis, the great series on the ABC, but I think Nemesishas reminded everyone, including the Australian public, how much dishonesty, how much hatred there is within the caucus of those opposite.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, resume your seat. The coalition was heard in silence in accordance with standing order number 197. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to Senator Polley. Senator Polley, you have the call.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that protection. No matter how much they try to interject, the reality is that the Australian people remember only too clearly the broken promises of Mr Abbott. They remember very clearly the failures of the Turnbull government. And let's talk about Mr Morrison's government, shall we? According to Nemesisit's not just us saying this; even their our own colleagues are saying this—when Mr Morrison was Treasurer he used to leak all the tax policies to the media before even talking to his own cabinet colleagues, whereas in this circumstance the Prime Minister and the Treasurer went through due process, got the support of cabinet, got the support of the caucus of the Labor government. And we will never walk away—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chandler, I have called you to order twice. Please comply with the standing orders.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been honest and upfront with the Australian people about this position that we've taken. It's a very different time economically than it was under the Morrison government when they introduced these tax arrangements. We made an assessment based on the best interest of the Australian people. We have a cost-of-living issue that is alive and well. We are doing things that are going to tangibly assist working Australians. And let's not forget, those people opposite do not appreciate that all Australians aspire to a better future for themselves. They're all aspirational, not just the top end of town. It appears to me that the only people you're really concerned about when it comes to the tax changes is the top end of town—concerned that people like ourselves are not going to get as much in the way of a tax cut. That is because it's in your DNA. That's because, when you were in government for a decade, you did nothing but keep Australian workers' wages down.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm saying is that aspiration is not exclusively for people already doing well. We want every Australian to be able to get ahead. We want our nurses who are earning $73,000 a year to get a tax cut of $1,504 a year. That is $800 more than what they would have got under stage 3. I don't walk away from that.

What I find just amazing is that, even with the fresh memories of this wonderful series that we've been watching called Nemesis, they have learnt nothing on that side of the chamber—nothing at all. They don't understand and relate to Australian workers. They obviously don't appreciate how difficult people are having it out there and how hard it is to make ends meet. They did nothing about the housing crisis, they did nothing about homelessness and they did nothing about improving Australian workers' wages, particularly in the service sector of aged care, early childhood education and disability. If it is so bad, if this tax policy is so bad, why are you going to support it? Why don't you stand up for once and do something that you actually believe in? If it is such bad policy and you don't want people to get this tax cut, then don't support it. You're doing it because you know in your heart of hearts that it is the right thing to do, which the Australian people can rely on us to do each and every day while we are in government. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Folks listening to this debate could be forgiven for thinking there was a massive difference in the policies of the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get a new line for a new year.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

when, in fact, there is barely a glimmer of sunlight about the thickness of a playing card between the two. That is the case around a range of policy areas: support for fossil fuels, delivery for big gaming, delivery for the big supermarket corporations and also, of course, tax policy in Australia, which is a significant part of the topic of this debate. Let's be very clear about how we find ourselves here today. Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the tax cuts were legislated even though Labor didn't support them. But they ended up voting for them because they were too weak to stand up to Mr Morrison, Mr Dutton and Mr Cormann. That's why stage 3 tax cuts for the top end of town were legislated in Australia.

Then the Labor Party came into government. They were very triumphant on the night, but it is worth noting that their vote went backwards by nearly three per cent, so it's hardly a ringing endorsement from the Australian people. Consistently they said that stage 3 was legislated and it was in. Then Labor quite rightly, in the view of the Greens, reframed the stage 3 tax cuts because economic conditions had changed. We agree with the Prime Minister that, when conditions change, so should government policy. We also point out that we should therefore talk about things like negative gearing and climate policy in the same context. But what Labor did was not dramatically recast the stage 3 tax cuts in such a way that it would make Australia's tax system more progressive. What the Labor Party did was make some reasonably minor changes that still will result in Australia's tax system being more regressive than it currently is as we stand here debating today prior to 1 July.

Now, because the Prime Minister has rightly said that, when conditions change, so should government policy, now is the time to talk about negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Now is the time to talk about the $200 billion in tax concessions that property investors are going to get over the next five years and now is the time to talk about the fact that they are using those concessions to outbid Australian renters and young Australians who are dreaming of owning their first home. (Time expired)

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

I'll give it to Senator McKim: whilst I did enjoy Senator Watt's interjection that perhaps Senator McKim could look for some new lines in a new parliamentary year—

Senator Shoebridge might well assist Senator McKim—at least we know what we're going to get from Senator McKim. He is quite upfront. He believes in a socialist economic policy, as do his brethren sitting on the Greens benches. We know what we're going to get from them. Senator McKim is advocating for changes to negative gearing and advocating for changes in terms of the CGT discount. We know where the Greens stand.

But the whole point of this debate is the promise that was made. I think the tally is that the promise was made almost 100 times by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others in the government that they would not change the stage 3 tax cuts. So, when Senator Polley gets up and says that those on this side of the chamber are attempting to rewrite history, that is a gross distortion of the facts of the matter. We are not the ones trying to rewrite history here. The history is there, and those sitting in the gallery know what the history is. They will remember the Prime Minister saying, 'My word is my bond.' That is what the Prime Minister said in particular in relation to this context. They will remember that.

They will also remember that, as recently as mid-December, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position on the stage 3 had tax cuts. When they were specifically asked as recently as only a few months ago about the stage 3 tax cuts, they said they had not changed their position. But at the same time the government had commissioned Treasury to do the research for them to do the policy work to change their position. We were in a cost-of-living crisis in mid-December. We'd been in a cost-of-living crisis for a number of months. I can remember taking the shadow Treasurer to one of the food banks in the greater Ipswich region, where my office is located. That food bank was seeing people it had never seen before as clients. We were in a cost-of-living crisis then. But as recently as December the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were saying they were not reconsidering their position.

Senator Polley said that the government has been honest and upfront. That was the phrase Senator Polley used: upfront. On my understanding of the plain English meaning of 'upfront', before an election you make a promise and a commitment and then, after you get elected, you keep the promise or commitment. It's pretty simple. When politicians of whatever stripe—it doesn't matter what colour they are—don't do that, we all suffer, because people then say, 'Well, you just can't trust anything they say.' That's the position we're in now in terms of this government.

For the Australians who are listening to this debate, be very, very careful. When members of the government—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance—say that they're not currently considering something or they're not reconsidering, that's a red flag, because they may well change their position. You've got no guarantee. When they say they have 'no plan' to do something, that's a red flag. Most of all, when the Prime Minister looks the Australian people in the eye and says to them, 'My word is my bond,' then you're in a great deal of trouble. That is what the Australian people have learnt over the last few weeks.

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

We started with a robust and definitive no from the Liberal and National parties when this policy was first introduced. They said no to the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts, which apply to every single working Australian. Then we skipped through a very unedifying performance on Monday, which lacked adherence to Senate rules and even to some forms of reality, shifting the focus of those opposite from the reality of the substance of this tax cut issue that we're debating here to a banal conversation about which public servant took what phone call at which time. This showed an abject sense of desperation. Now, in a desperate bid to find another front and another way to argue out anything but the content or substance of the changes here—the Albanese Labor government tax cuts that give every Australian worker or taxpayer a tax cut—they're now here scaremongering about the things that we're not doing.

It seems rather curious to me when we're talking about a mob that lectures about trust and integrity yet was embroiled in scandals just about every single day of its nine years in government, with a Prime Minister who tried to become some clandestine one-man cabinet, which was not only unlawful but unprecedented and disrespectful to not only the Australian people but his entire party. We'll just skip past that: 'Oh, that doesn't matter. We'll forget that.' It was a government that constantly obfuscated. Let's go to robodebt. Let's go to sports rorts. And you want to sit there and lecture us about integrity. I don't think so.

The constant infighting doesn't appear to have changed that much. If you want to have a look at that, we've got some screenings on Monday nights at the moment. Just bring your own popcorn, because Nemesis is—

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

I want to watch The Killing Season.

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

Yes, you can watch that too, because that's also there.

What the Albanese Labor government tax cuts are doing is delivering a better, more progressive tax system. The plan returns bracket creep for all taxpayers. We're dropping two tax rates, lifting two thresholds and essentially giving everyone a tax cut. The coalition's plan was legislated five years ago, and the world was a very different place, before the once-in-100-year pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty. Australians have been under sustained, increased pressure. As the circumstances changed that radically in five years, it would be a very blind and deaf government that didn't respond to those changes, and we are neither. So we have responded, and the tax cuts that we are bringing in will make a fundamental difference to the cost-of-living pressures that people are facing every single day in this country.

Those opposite are now in a situation where they're going to vote for these Albanese Labor government tax cuts. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. If you genuinely believed it wasn't, you would have kept up the fight against them, but you haven't. You're now just going off down rabbit holes about any old thing you can grab hold of. Where we are now is a situation where the policy settings are right, they reflect the national interest and they are responsive to the economic circumstances that we are facing. We are the party of lower tax. We are the party of a better, fairer tax system. That is what the Labor government is doing.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fear this motion is indicative of part of what is wrong with politics in Australia. The crossbench has been calling on the Albanese government for the last 18 months to redesign these tax cuts. And I applaud the Albanese government for, in a cost-of-living crisis, putting more money into the pockets of people who need it. Scott Morrison, at the 2019 election, was talking about paying down the debt so as not to burden future generations. When COVID hit, the coalition government spent money to keep people alive, to keep people above the poverty line, to keep our economy going. People understand that they want a government that is going to govern.

What we're seeing now is this hysteria around things like negative gearing and capital gains tax. What I'm hearing from people I represent is that they hope that politicians will now actually move on to talking about these things, and maybe get on with changing this system that treats housing as an investment vehicle over something that people in our communities should afford. From the outside, it must seem strange that these politicians—who, on average, own more investment properties than the average Australian—are trying to entrench a system which means that young people are locked out of the property market. If you don't have the bank of mum and dad, you're out of luck. Surely that's not the kind of Australia we want going forward.

It shouldn't matter whether or not you're born into a wealthy family. You should be able to afford to pay the rent and do meaningful work in our communities. We're not going to get there unless we're willing to have the debate and make some changes to things like capital gains tax discount and negative gearing.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I congratulate Senator Smith for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate.

I think it's telling, from the contributions we've heard, that those opposite seem to want to talk about a certain ABC TV show more than they want to talk about their own tax policy. At the heart of this change is a significant broken promise. The trouble for the Labor Party is they have form in this area—and not just over this government, the Albanese government. They've got multiple examples of form in this area. They've got form in this area on changes to superannuation taxation, where they said there would be no changes but they introduced an increase in taxation on superannuation for self-managed super funds—a particularly egregious change where balances of over $3 million face a new tax. We've seen examples where farmers have, under the then rules, put property into self-managed super funds, where property happens to be their chief asset in terms of their farming property, and that asset has gone over $3 million, and now, in the very near future, they will potentially face tax bills on the unrealised gains of those assets that they will have to potentially sell property to be able to pay, or they will have to find cash in their own pocket.

This is a government that has form in this area, and we saw it in previous governments as well. We saw it in the Rudd-Gillard Labor government—the carbon tax commitment, another broken promise there. We saw it in the rollback of the tax relief that was in the 2014 budget. We saw it in previous Labor governments—the infamous 'l-a-w, law' tax cuts under the Keating government, where we saw a broken promise from a Labor prime minister. We have a pattern of behaviour from this government. No matter how they want to justify it, when you look the Australian people in the eye and make a firm commitment—not just once but 100 times—and when you make it repeatedly and when you make it in the clearest possible language, that gives those on this side and the Australian people the right to then ask the question, to ask for definitive answers, about things like negative gearing and franking credits—which is the issue that Senator Dean Smith raised earlier—and, in the fullness of time, when the Labor government has looked at the books and decided it needs a little bit of extra tax revenue, whether those things won't come under the microscope. We've already heard from the crossbench that they want those things under the microscope and that they want those things to be considered.

You can understand the hesitation of the Australian people when they hear the rhetoric from those opposite and the constant references to a certain ABC TV show and to events and activities that happened years and years and years ago. Those opposite don't want to defend their own policy positions, policy backflips, policy changes and broken promises, because they have form in this area. The Australian people don't have a high level of trust in this government to say what it's going to do and to follow through.

We will continue to hold this government to account. We will continue to point out where they have said things very clearly on the public record dozens and dozens of times to the Australian people and then gone back on their word. We're not allowed to use a certain word in this place, apparently. We've been banned from saying it. But the fact is that mistruths will come back to haunt this government, and they should. A prime minister who says, 'My word is my bond,' should be able to be believed. This one can't.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.