Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

Too lazy to challenge? That might be pushing the ‘lazy’ angle just a little too far. But we know that the very small level of support the Treasurer would have had in any leadership challenge is largely a reflection of his laziness. I know that is what his backbench think. They think he is a lazy Treasurer who relies on the economic foundation that Labor laid when last in government, which has now led to 15 years of continuous economic growth. He has sat back and just enjoyed it—no real reform; he has ridden on Labor’s wave.

The Treasurer relies on spin. He is pretty good in question time—almost as good as Paul Keating, I would suggest, and I think he has largely modelled himself on that style. He is pretty good in question time with the spin but, when it comes to the substance, there ain’t much happening! His backbench knows that. And I think the member for Moncrieff might know that—he might take the opportunity in this wide-ranging debate to indicate his view on that very issue.

While Labor welcomes the bill, we call upon the government to do something about the operative provisions of the act that will actually make a difference to people. That is what we are trying to achieve by way of our second reading amendment. It should also be noted that the government is not just repealing provisions; it is changing the law in only small ways. The best example is the change to section 26(e) in respect of assessable income of goods in kind. This has been rewritten, and the operation of the act was changed in a minor way. The point is that this bill is mistitled. When savings provisions and ‘rewrites’ are considered, the bill involves much more than the repeal of inoperative provisions, as does the example in section 26(e). But they are not the kinds of changes I am talking about. This determines that goods received in kind are assessable income, but it is never used due to the operation of the FBT.

Let me talk about this concept. Once upon a time we did not have FBT, so there was a tax law to make sure that, if an employee were given a gift in replacement of a salary, then that gift or that additional amount of money would be taken to be assessable income of the employee. That does not happen anymore because the FBT takes priority over that law and there is no reason to go back to that law. So there has been a little bit of tweaking there, but it does not matter. It is a nonissue for Australian taxpayers and Australian businesses. It is just another example of a wasted opportunity.

I have with me a report entitled Beyond 4100. The title is self-explanatory. It is written by the Tax Institute of Australia. It was written to back up what I am saying. In point of fact, I have probably backed up what they have said. I am happy to give them the lead. They are the real experts. They have more resources than I have to look at these things in greater detail. They also have more corporate history in these issues than I have. They are saying that it is okay to repeal these provisions—they do not greatly affect people anyway—but that you have to go beyond 4,100 pages and get your teeth into the things that do matter to people. You have to make some real reductions in areas that will make a difference to Australian taxpayers and every entity that has an obligatory interface and relationship with the tax act and the Australian Taxation Office.

In the second reading amendment, we have borrowed, if you like, the ideas of the Tax Institute. We have looked at them: they seem to make sense; they seem to be efficient; they seem to have efficacy; and they seem to be pretty good ideas. It is not for the opposition to write law in this place. It is an area in which you must tread very warily and where a comma or a full stop in the wrong place can make a difference. The lazy Treasurer has the resources of two departments behind him—Treasury and the tax office—and therefore has the capacity to do something meaningful about the tax act. Some real changes could be made to lift the compliance burden on individuals and businesses, to introduce a more competitive environment into the Australian economy and to raise productivity levels and economic growth.

So, I say to the Treasurer, ‘Rather than sit back and rest on the Labor reforms of the eighties and the nineties, have a look at Beyond 4100 and Labor’s amendments—they highlight the important parts of Beyond 4100—and take this opportunity to make a real difference by tidying up the tax act, reducing the compliance burden and, therefore, spreading the benefits of that reform right throughout the Australian economy. This will basically give individuals and businesses the break they have been looking for a long time.

See this speech in context