Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I often feel for the member for Cowper in this place, but particularly today for three reasons. First of all, as the minister responsible, unlike the members for Lyne and Leichhardt, he had no choice but to stand at the dispatch box and support this insidious tax. That is the first point. Unlike the members near him, he had no choice but to speak. Second, he of course drew the short straw by being given the task of going out there and surveying the sector and conducting an inquiry—the third inquiry—to determine how the government might wiggle its way out of this tax proposal. Third, the member for Cowper represents one of those electorates most affected by not only the backpackers tax but the other impositions this bill puts on the tourism sector. So I wish the member for Cowper all the best in his electorate as he goes back to his constituents and constituent businesses, in particular, to explain to them why it is that he is imposing this tax on their businesses, notwithstanding the fact that his own Treasury modelling says that 19 per cent is going to drive backpackers away. Indeed, Treasury modelling shows that the fall off in backpackers will be no less at 19 per cent than it would have been at the original 32.5 per cent.

Talking about people who have not been prepared to come in here and stand up for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 and related bills, I ask, having had a look at the speakers list: where is the member for Capricornia? She was going to be fighting hard for her people on this backpackers tax before the election? Where is the member for Flynn? He was going to stick up for his growers in Biloela. These members have completely gone missing. They are lions in their electorates and cowards here, when they arrive in Canberra. I do give the member for Mallee credit. I remember standing at this dispatch box giving credit to the member for Mallee, because I followed his first speech in this place and I thought it was a very fine speech. I could tell he was a person—I thought he was a person—who was prepared to stick up for his electorate. He has had some pretty harsh things to say about the backpackers tax, not unexpectedly, in his electorate over recent months. In fact, at one point, he said that he was confident this tax was dead. Yet, he has the courage to at least come into this place today and I assume—I should not pre-empt what he is going to say; he might give us all a pleasant surprise, having been so critical of the tax—defend the tax.

Let's just go through a little bit of history here so that we know what we are talking about. For a number of reasons, the ATO commissioner had concerns about the validity of those ticking the box which declares them residents for tax purposes and therefore providing them with a tax-free threshold. He took it to the AAT and had a ruling and decided that he would deny that significant number of people. The government at the time, the Abbott government, could have said: 'We reject that. We'll fix this. This is going to be too bad for the tourism and agriculture sectors. We will quickly move to legislate to make the tax zero or to somehow reinstate the threshold for these backpackers'—but, no. That was not the plan for the coalition. They saw an opportunity to rake in $540 million over four years out of this decision—and, make no mistake about it, they made their choice. They took the money and ran, without any concern for those in the agriculture sector and the tourism sector that were going to be adversely affected.

So what happened then? They were very brave for a while, very bold, very courageous. They stood their ground until an election came along and—surprise, surprise—the pressure came on. What did they do then? They said they would review the policy, but they kept booking the $540 million all the way to election day. In other words, they walked both sides of the street. They wanted people to think that post election they would review this tax and get rid of this tax—but, no. The sectors affected were sadly and sorely disappointed. That is not what they got at all. They got another survey, which is what the member for Cowper was going on about. I have read the Deloittes report. I have seen the assistant minister's report. It is no more than a survey. We have a divided parliament and a divided community over this issue. Yes, the NFF are saying, 'We're happy with 19 per cent.' And why wouldn't they? It is because every day Barnaby Joyce rings them and says, with a gun to their head, 'You back 19 or you'll get 32.5.' Remember, if we do not legislate, it goes back to 32.5. He has a got a gun to the head of the NFF and other groups. This is the disrespect with which he treats farmers in this country. It is disrespect. This is a hopeless situation.

The member for Cowper went on and on about the opposition's position. We have a very clear position. Like on so many matters brought to this place in this era in which budget repair is important, we have said we will work with the government. We have only one condition and that is: whatever the government does, it restores the international competitiveness of Australia. We must be able to compete. We were losing backpackers before this tax came into effect, and what did the government do? Did it address the labour market issues? Did it address employer exploitation so that potential backpackers in Europe and elsewhere were not getting the wrong messages about what it is like to be a backpacker in Australia? No. Rather than address the decline in backpacker numbers, it made it worse by putting a tax on it. What sort of genius would decide that you would address the fall-off in backpacker numbers by taxing them? It takes a particular sort of genius to come up with that solution.

Again on Labor's position, the government is accusing us of delaying this bill. Excuse me? We made a sound commitment to give this bill expeditious passage through the House of Representatives. What was their response? They introduced it last week and parked it. They could have had this debated in this House last week and this bill could be with the Senate committee as we speak. They did not bring it on for debate. It was so urgent that they decided to leave it until this week, and if we had not said something I suspect it would not have been this week either. We have also said that, whatever the outcome here, this bill will pass the parliament by Christmas, making sure that it meets the deadline of 1 January, which the government has now set.

It was not the Labor Party that decided to tie the backpacker tax to an increase in the passenger movement charge—a very substantial increase which has the tourism sector nothing less than ropable—or to tie it to a cash grab, which is the increase in the taxation on the employer superannuation contribution. To be sure people understand that, the employer will now pay nine per cent of salary and the government will immediately take 95 per cent of it back. For backpackers who do not claim the remaining five per cent, that will go into government coffers as well. This is partly, with the passenger movement charge, how they are offsetting the loss between 32.5 per cent and 19 per cent. They are reducing the backpacker tax and slugging other people, including employers—hardworking farmers in this country and tourism operators. That is the scandal of this proposition.

This government has become serial. The dysfunction of this government, the division within this government and the failure of leadership in this government is becoming palpable. There could be no better example than this backpacker tax. We see it with the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources wants to move it to Armidale, in his own electorate. You will recall he was under considerable pressure in the last election campaign for putting his own political interests ahead of the interests of Australia's farmers. In case people do not understand, the chemicals regulator approves crop sprays and the like and veterinary medicines for our farmers. If farmers cannot get those in a timely manner, productivity falls and the farmers go down with it.

I had a gentleman on the phone this morning who is trying to get approvals for a rodent control, which farmers need so desperately. It usually takes 10 weeks, on average, to get something like that passed by the APVMA so it can be moved on to our farmers. He has been told it will be April next year. Why? Because the staff are already deserting the APVMA. They are running for cover. Of the 170 staff surveyed, 14 said they would be prepared to move to Armidale. Minister Joyce is destroying the APVMA and the impact is already being felt. The rodent protection is the perfect example of the impact that is having. I could go through the list: the failed white paper disappeared; there is no support for the dairy industry; a failed drought policy. The list goes on and on. He comes in here every day and takes credit for prices when they are high—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

I thank Mr Pasin for the interjection. He comes in every day and takes credit for drought induced beef prices, but we never hear him talking about commodity prices that have gone down. It is magic. He takes credit for everything that goes up and no credit for anything that goes down.

It was not Labor's idea to introduce a backpacker tax. It was not Labor's idea to reduce it to 19 per cent, even though that will make no difference. It was not Labor's idea to tie it to a superannuation tax charge and a hefty increase in the passenger movement charge. This is a problem of the government's making and we stand ready to help fix it. I do not know what the good rate is, if we have to have a backpacker tax. I do not have the Treasury machine to grind through the numbers. We know it is not 19 per cent. I do not know whether it is 10½ per cent. It could be seven per cent, it could be five per cent or it could be two per cent.

See this speech in context