Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Under Labor, productivity in Australia is in freefall. Labor's big-taxing agenda punishes every investment productivity depends on. Labor is making every part of the economy that drives productivity growth less attractive, with more regulation and higher taxes. Is it not the truth that Labor's budget is really the start of its new policy, a future made overseas, because this government is really only interested in fuelling its spending by taxing innovation and aspiration at the expense of making Australia a less attractive place to build, employ, work and grow?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the short answer to that is no. This government has done more to address productivity than any that I can recall in the time that I have served in this chamber. I note that One Nation voted against our tax cuts last week. I note that One Nation voted against making housing work better for all Australians, particularly younger Australians, who increasingly feel locked out of the housing market, because they are. We've taken a decision to change that. We think it's the right thing to do to make sure that our tax system works in the interests of all Australians in a fairer and more balanced way. That is the decision we took.

As the Treasurer said yesterday, when you're faced with these challenges, you can make two decisions: do nothing—ignore and allow that to continue—or seek to make changes that make it better for people. That's what we do on this side of the chamber. On that side of the chamber, increasingly, more often than not—in fact, I think it's very, very rare, Senator Bell, for you not to vote with the Liberal and National parties. You take that view, that you want to oppose change and you want to maintain the status quo. I don't know how you explain that to your constituents, Senator Bell, when they're worried about getting into housing and you say: 'Oh, no, the housing system is working fine. No change required here.' We take a different view.

We've had a lot of discussion in relation to productivity in this place. The slowest productivity growth in the last 60 years was in the decade between 2010 and 2020. We have a number of measures in the budget specifically looking at driving productivity growth. Treasury has endorsed our tax reform as meeting our productivity— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bell, first supplementary?

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Treasurer Chalmers has claimed that Labor's tax changes will redirect capital away from established housing and into more productive parts of the economy. But Labor is also making investment in businesses, shares and other assets that drive productivity growth less attractive. Where does the Treasurer expect that capital to go, when his government is making taxes higher for every alternative?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is indeed what the Treasurer has said, and it's the advice that Treasury has provided. What it says is that, instead of making investment decisions based on the concessional nature of the tax break that's associated with that investment, you make that investment based on what is the most productive use of your dollars, on neutral tax settings—that is, the tax settings remain neutral, so therefore you're making decisions on what is the most productive use of that investment. At the moment, what we're seeing—and it's clear in budget statement 4 of BP 1—and have seen since 1999 is investment dollars going into established property for the nature of the return that can be generated there. The consequence is that first home buyers have been squeezed out of the housing market. You want that to continue, and we don't think that's right.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister actually name a single productive industry that is now not going to be taxed higher under this bad Labor budget? You say the money will be redirected. Name one industry that's going to benefit. I'd just be careful because industry is listening. The Australians who work in these industries are listening. Can you just name one industry that you say is going to have that money directed to it?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

The tax reform includes a range of other measures. There is $3.8 billion of investment into businesses: the R&D tax incentive, the venture capital arrangements, the instant asset write-off—a whole range of areas in this tax reform package that are about investing in innovation, dynamism and supporting investment; all of those. I would also say that what we've done here is make sure that working Australians, those that earn their income through wages, are getting a better deal through tax cuts. And it's right, Senator Bell—if you earn your income through wages, why should you be paying more than someone who earns their income from assets? Why? What we're doing is making sure that it's a much fairer system.

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance. I'm still waiting to hear the actual industry. Can you name the industry?

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bell. The minister is being relevant, and I'll continue to listen carefully.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

All of those areas that I talk about, such as innovation and dynamism, occur across the economy. It's all areas, Senator Bell. I know you don't agree with it, but that's the case, they're the facts and that's the budget we handed— (Time expired)