Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I hear the mover of the amendment say ‘Oh, no—we changed our proposition. We heard what you said last time and we have updated the resolution.’ If you look at where this matter was debated in the estimates committee you see that the opposition failed to address a lot of the mechanical and really detailed issues with their amendment to our tax laws. The Australian Taxation Office takes a view on what would happen if this opposition amendment were to be passed. Mr Monaghan, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, was asked by a senator what he thought would happen if he implemented this receipt proposition. The question was a long one; I am paraphrasing. What would Mr Monaghan of the tax office know! He is only in the tax system—as opposed to the opposition, who theorise! Mr Monaghan said:

It is highly likely that some taxpayers will challenge an assessment process where they can.

If there is a challenge to a tax technical point, like whether or not you have the various assessments down properly, the tax office cannot take any recovery action until the court case is resolved.

As much as the opposition may wish that reality is not reality, if they are required to provide taxpayers with information in a personalised way it will affect the assessment process. They have not addressed the tax office evidence. Let us get to some of the real issues hiding behind this Tea Party-like proposition of the opposition. It bemuses me when I look at some of the contributions of the shadow Treasurer’s fan club, whose members come in loyally to back the shadow Treasurer. And why wouldn’t they? It is not an easy choice for some of them, the true believers, who believe that the Liberal Party should go back to being the Liberal Party. When I look at some of their contributions, the question occurs to me: how on earth is it that the coalition, when they went into opposition, had ideas that they never had in the 11 years they were in government? And, indeed, the member for Mackellar has been there for a lot longer than 11 years. I look at the CV of some of the speakers proposing their amendments—the member for Higgins worked for Treasurer Costello, the member for Casey worked for—(Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Hockey’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context