Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Ladies and gentlemen, it wasn't once. It wasn't twice. It was more than 50 times that our prime minister lied straight to the Australian people about changes to capital gains and negative gearing. Last year, the Prime Minister stated:

The only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election.

'My word is my bond,' he said. At the last election, the Prime Minister stated changes to negative gearing were 'off the table', but, today, as we have all heard, the Prime Minister has gone and done a dirty deal with the Australian Greens to get these tax changes on the table. At the last election, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. 'I rule out,' he said. But, today, he has done a dirty deal to get these changes on the table.

He broke his promise to the Australian people, and I was reminded today by an Australian constituent of a quote from Jean-Baptiste Colbert in the 17th century, the finance minister to King Louis XIV. He said, 'The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible number of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.' Let me tell you, Labor, there is not just hissing out there across Australia; there is absolute outrage. Had you done the consultations with the Australian people, with business owners, with startups, with innovators and with investors, you would have known that this is a destructive tax bill and one that the Australian people would never have voted for.

We have seen that there's not just been a dirty deal done with the Greens, but there are backflips and carve-outs, and one of those carve-outs was for innovative startups. There's one set of capital gains tax rules for small businesses and another set of rules for so-called innovative businesses. For two days, we've asked this government what that actually means. What is the difference between a small business and an innovative small business? No idea. They can't tell us. There is no detail backing up this carve-out. They just don't know. We asked: who will determine whether a business satisfies those tests, and what objective criteria will be applied? I think these are very sensible questions to be asking. There were no details and no answers. They don't know. All we got was a rear-view answer. They talked about the coalition's time in government, which was two terms ago.

What the Australian people want are hope and vision. They want certainty and confidence, and this tax bill gives them absolutely none of that. They will be absolutely stymieing high-risk, high-growth businesses, and we will be fighting this every single step of the way.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I would just remind you—and it wasn't raised by anyone in the chamber, but it was raised with me. You used a certain word in relation to an individual, in which case that is a breach of 193(3). I ask you to withdraw.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no greater illustration that the Liberal Party of Australia is not fit to govern than the attack on the budget here today. This is one of those things that illustrates the lack of capacity on that side, and I'm going to deal with three points. The first is you have no credibility on taxes. The second is you ignore the details in the budget, and you ignore them in order to mislead. The third is that the values that this budget embodies on this side of the house are the values of Australia. They are the values of the Australian people.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, Varun! This is one of the most tragic betrayals. What's an innovative business? You know the law applies certainty. We demand tax reform, not tax—

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, you can interject all you want on me; the facts speak for themselves. Let's go to those facts, and let's go to the circumstances, because the one thing that's been a theme on that side is that the government shouldn't have changed its position on a number of topics and taxation issues. But, when the facts change, when the circumstances change, when working Australians are desperate for changes and some assistance to their cost of living, when working Australians are desperate to get into housing, then we change our policies because that is the right thing to do. That's what we're explaining and we're taking to the Australian people. There's no better illustration of the values that differ on this side of the house to that side than the fact that my colleague was quoting from the finance minister to King Louis XIV of France, the Sun King himself, yet we are engaged in a piece of tax reform that helps working people. We're engaged in tax reforms that will help get people into housing.

In terms of working people, what have we done? We've delivered a Working Australians Tax Offset to reduce the tax that working people in this country pay by 250 bucks a year. Since 2023 and 2024, that brings the total reduction in the average tax that working people pay in this country down by $2,816 a year, on average. That's significant, that's money in people's pockets, that's a lower tax burden and that contrasts to those opposite, who took to the last election a tax increase.

The second point I want to make is around housing. Let's deal with negative gearing and these tax changes to CGT in relation to housing, because it's important to understand where the values lie and on whose side of the debate each of the parties in here lie. In spite of their nocturnal flirtation with One Nation, when you go back to it, the coalition are for the top end of town. That's why they oppose these capital gains changes. This is from the Australian Financial Review:

About a third of all capital gains were realised by the people who earned incomes in the highest 1 per cent during their working lives, while more than half of all gains went to the top 10 per cent.

So, if you want to know whose side they're on, it's the top one per cent and it's the top 10 per cent; it's not working Australians. It's not young Australians trying to get into a house.

In terms of negative gearing changes, which they oppose, again from the AFR, in the same article, 'For almost one-in-three negatively geared investment properties sold in 2022-23, investors ultimately paid less tax than they would have if they had never bought the property at all. However, they still made a profit on the property.' That's effectively a government subsidy in the tax system through negative gearing. We're fine for people to invest. We're fine for people to make money, but they shouldn't be able to put it through a loophole, and they shouldn't be able to do it in circumstances where we have a housing crisis and where investors are taking stock off the market and keeping young Australians out of their first homes.

What it comes down to in the end, what this budget comes down to and where this debate lies is values. Where you will find the Australian Labor Party, where you will find the Albanese government, is on the side of working Australians and on the side of young Australians.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard this afternoon about the government's consultation paper on CGT reform regarding arrangements for innovative startups. We heard the government's going to look to concepts like innovation and commercialisation, scalability and growth—all great words, all very interesting. Of course, one way of dealing with taxation in this country would be to simplify it and reduce it. But, anyway, we'll go we'll go down this path for a minute, just to humour ourselves. What we didn't hear, of course, from the government in question time today is how they're going to determine whether a business is sufficiently innovative and who's going to be the beneficiary of this in general terms.

You would think, if you were releasing a tax policy, you'd have a little more detail over it. But no, we've got a consultation paper. Which companies are going to be involved? I mean, are we going to get these for their friends in the pharmaceutical business, pharmaceutical companies? We don't know, because the Labor government is proposing effectively to let Canberra bureaucrats make those decisions. This side of the chamber would say, 'What's wrong with that?' Well, does anyone remember COVID? Does anyone remember what happens when we let the bureaucracy run rampant and wild in relation to making decisions about these sorts of matters?

One thing I will say off the topic, though, is that pharma are innovative. We've got to give them that. They are always finding innovative ways to sell us their products. This week we heard all about the two birds—did you hear about this? They found two birds in WA. They got them. They were two birds. One of them had the sniffles, and the other one appears to have been listless at home drinking chicken soup. These birds are almost like the bell ringing on the pharmaceutical company's guilt trip, saying: 'We're entering the winter season. We're about to lean on you to get your flu shot, and now we've found two birds with the sniffles.' Two birds are going to going to make you—you've got to hand it to them; that's innovative. I'd give them a tax break every day of the week, because these companies have made some of the best public relations steps you've ever seen. Protect yourself. Protect grandma. Protect the vulnerable. Now we've got avian influenza doing the heavy lifting.

It's the same pattern, year after year: a new variant; a new scare. When Australians are at home wondering whether they should book their annual flu jab or just sit in front of the TV with chicken soup, they are getting this innovative spin from pharmaceutical companies. I'm not saying that the birds are in on it, but if they start claiming superannuation I think we've got a problem! If history has taught us anything, though, it's that fear is a real sales tool and winter is the favourite season. That's innovation for you.

Back to the issue of taxation—we now are at a point where this system has become so complicated and so difficult to navigate that it's like the AFL draft. You simply cannot negotiate it without people that are heavily invested in it. This is an endemic problem that, I would say, this government have ably contributed to over the last period. You almost can't navigate your life as an average Australian citizen without employing a team of experts to help you. If you're a tradie out there now, this tax system has become so complicated that you need to spend thousands of dollars a year just to stay compliant—we're not talking about getting a particular edge or whatever—just to simply stay within the confines of the law.

This government, rather than simplifying matters by, say, reducing the tax burden, is actually making it more complicated. We don't know who's in and who's out. We don't know. There are a range of things that we simply do not understand, and that's because it's been done on the fly without a proper plan and with, I would say, a particular backlash from industry. Now they're trying to pick favourites. It's worse than that—they're going to let the Canberra bubble pick favourites. That's not the way you run a country.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

When I came into this place 4½ years ago, I said that I wanted to do politics differently. I think I've proven in the last couple of years that I'm definitely doing politics differently.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

By joining the Labor Party!

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

And by leaving Jacqui Lambie, becoming an Independent and exploring all the colours of politics. It's one of those things, though. Eventually you find a safe home and a place where you agree, you collaborate and you cooperate holistically. I believe that's what politics should be all about.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what Jacqui thought!

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, well—'That's what Jacqui thought.' It's one of those things where I want to do good for the people of Tasmania and I've found a place where I think that will happen. The changes we're doing for the tax reform are going to show workers, businesses and future generations that reform is required to improve the quality of life that we have within Australia. We're going to deliver a new round of tax cuts, including more tax cuts for every taxpayer, from next week. We're helping more Australians realise the dream of homeownership and supporting investment and innovation. That's one of the things that I wanted to come into this place and make a difference with: showing people in Tasmania that there is hope, there is opportunity and there are choices they can make to ensure that they have a better future. Some of the things I've done in this place are to ensure that housing in Tasmania is better and that Tasmanians have better opportunities open to them when it comes to health and education.

Reducing the tax burden for over 13 million workers is an important thing. We want people to have money in their pockets so that they can build a home, have a life, raise children and have a family. We want to ensure that the housing market increases and doesn't decrease like it has over the past few years. We want to ensure that businesses and startups are here in Australia, because it's important that we have industry, business and money within our homes and our country and in Tasmania in particular. One of my focuses is that we should have money, industry and business so that we can maintain families in my home state.

We shouldn't have to worry so much about what is going away from our homes and what is going away from our state. It makes me sad, when we look at change, that it's seen as a bad thing or that learning and educating yourself—about what differences there can be and how they can improve things—are seen as a bad thing. Learning from change, different datasets and different people is not backflipping. I've learnt many things from the people across the floor and also from the crossbench and the Greens. They have helped me become a better politician and understand where I stand within my community. I will work hard for the next two years to ensure that the people of Tasmania have industry, business, money and opportunity to build families, homes and industry within my home state.

As I said the other week, I do not apologise for backflipping and changing my colours. I'm proud to be a senator for Tasmania. I'm proud to be a Labor senator for Tasmania. And do you know what? Come on down and join the party. It's a great place to be. And do you know what? You've all encouraged me to be a bigger, better version of myself, and this is the bigger, better version. It's loud, it's proud, it's Tasmanian and it's also a Labor senator.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I say, through the chair, I'm a proud Tasmanian and a proud Labor senator. Have I said that before? I might say it again. But thank you for listening.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, do you know what? I disagree with you too, Sarah. And I disagree with Ross and Penny, but do you know what?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

It creates a better Tasmanian senator, and I will be holistic and agreeable.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Deputy President.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure Senator Tyrrell was enjoying it, but there were too many interjections going on.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order?

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I asked for the call. I have a point of order. The senator from your party interjected numerous times. I asked you informally to call her to order. You did not. I would ask you to stop allowing her to interject, Deputy President. Thank you.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I absolutely called Senator Henderson and Senator Cadell to order on numerous occasions. Senator Henderson.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I trust that Minister Wong takes her own lessons and also applies those in relation to her interjections. Thank you.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, it is not required. Let's move on.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an interesting question time we had today, where we heard the catchphrase, over and over again, 'Couldn't maintain the status quo'—the status quo being people with their money in their pocket. We've had to change that. The government wants your money in their pocket. That's the change here. We hear about the WATO and what a great thing that is. Bring it forward and we'll vote for it. Let's do it now; bring on the WATO. Two hundred and fifty dollars in people's pockets—what a great idea. But what those opposite are not saying is that, while they're giving you $5 in your hand upfront, they're reaching around and picking your pocket for the rest of the money behind you. They are taking a net gain in tax out of what they are doing here, so much so that the highest ever percentage of tax by a government, on average over four years, is what they are doing.

But we don't want to talk about that. The Minister for Finance had two minutes to answer a question—she herself pointed out that she had two minutes to get to an answer—about countries that have higher marginal tax rates than Australia now. She rattled off England at 24 per cent, United States at 24 per cent and Germany at 26 per cent. This is the finance minister, and I am confident that our finance minister knows that all of those percentages are lower than the 47 per cent that you get to pay in Australia. That's how maths works: 24, 24 and 26 are all lower than the 47 per cent of your money that you get to pay to the government now. So take your $5.

There's nothing this government likes more than your money, except maybe the Greens, and they are protecting the deal that was done with the Greens in this. The Greens would love to reach around and grab every cent you've got, because it's not about fairness or anything; it's about socialism. They talk about 'these three parties of the right'. Let's talk about the two parties of socialism that take away the very things they talk about: aspiration and productivity. How is it aspirational for young people who invest in ETFs or crypto or stocks to now get taxed 100 per cent more on their savings to buy a house? How do they get taxed 100 per cent more and afford the deposit for their house? How is that going to help anybody get into a house? How do you justify 100 per cent higher taxes than people paid before for a deposit and then say that gets young people into houses? It doesn't. Even their own Treasury documents—that massive right-wing conspiracy organisation, the Treasury of Australia—say 35,000 fewer houses will be built under this taxation plan. That is in their own document; I believe it is on page 158.

So here we have it. We're taxing young people more on the way they save to get a deposit, we're building 35,000 fewer homes and we have the highest capital gains tax in the world. And this is the plan. This is why we have to change the status quo as they go through these things. This government should not use big words they don't understand, like 'productivity' and 'aspiration'. They should stick to the words they do know. like 'taxation', because that is where they are and where they specialise. And Australians deserve more.

When we look at all these changes, let's not forget that this is from the same treasurer and the same prime minister who said they wouldn't look at taxing superannuation. But they wanted to do unrealised gains in superannuation—until they realised even the Greens wouldn't agree with them on that one. That was a step too far even for the socialists in the room. But now they've come back. They can do a deal with capital gains tax, and they've got it. They are taxing you because they don't want people to get ahead. Society is only controllable when everyone races to the bottom and no-one has anything. That is what we have with this, and that is why it's wrong. This deal is being rushed through because they want no more debate and no more investigation into it—pass it and put up with it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.