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

I think the member for Barker ran out of things to say, so solidly has he inserted himself into this debate. I will start with the member for Barker because I was on ABC Riverina just this morning and I heard the same porkies he told just now in the House when the host of the program decided to replay for me what the member for Barker had said yesterday. It is pretty extraordinary the way he and others—the member for Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Durack, the member for Capricornia and others—have tried to twist this debate.

I will begin by dealing with some of those myths. The first is the Pacific Islander program the member for Barker just raised: apples and oranges, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, if you will excuse the pun. That program is a foreign aid program. This whole debate is about the appropriate incentive settings to bring backpackers from places like Europe here, and there is no comparison to be made with the Pacific Islander program. The second I will not dwell on, because the Shadow Treasurer has already covered it. It is this idea that Australian workers were going to be working alongside backpackers and paying more tax. It is absolute rubbish and no shortage of economic commentators have said so. But they have continued to perpetuate that lie right throughout the course of this debate. The third is this idea that it is not their tax—'Nothing to see here. Thirty two point five per cent was never our idea. It was the tax commissioner. It was the tax commissioner backed by no less than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nothing to see here. We are innocent. We never supported this not in any stage.'

Mainly for the member for Barker's benefit, I am going to read exactly what Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, said on budget night 2015. Having already talked elsewhere about levelling the playing field, he said the government will:

… change the tax residency rules from 1 July 2016 to treat most people who are temporarily in Australia for a working holiday as non-residents for tax purposes, regardless of how long they are here.

This is the Treasurer's speech on budget night. He goes on to say this means they will be taxed at '32.5 per cent from their first dollar of income'. This is not your tax? This is your Treasurer, on budget night, declaring that he is about to secure $540 million in revenue.

He said it with such glee; I remember it so vividly. Yet members on the other side want to claim that this was never their idea—'It is all the tax commissioner's fault.' And the member for Barker said that the Labor Party was happy with it at zero. Yes, we were. Of six years in government we never proposed a backpacker tax—never. In fact, in the 12 years prior to that we never proposed a backpacker tax. It took geniuses on that side of the House, when backpackers were already falling away, to decide to whack a tax on them, to whack a tax on them when they were already falling away. There is one thing that all of us in this place agree on: backpackers are needed in the agricultural sector and, indeed, in the tourism sector. They are, in particular, needed in the horticultural sector.

While I am talking about some of the misleads, I want to go to an awkward conversation, and that is the contribution of the National Farmers' Federation throughout the course of this debate. Obviously, it is important for me to have a working relationship with the National Farmers' Federation, and I do. I said in this place, last week, 'Congratulations to Fiona Simson' the new chair. She will do an outstanding job, I believe, in that position. She has been a great leader of NSW Farmers and other entities, and she will be, again, a great leader of the National Farmers' Federation.

But on budget night 2015 I rang the NFF, as you would expect the shadow minister to do. When I saw a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax and $540 million in revenue coming the government's way, alarm bells rang in my mind. As you would expect, I called the NFF. I asked them, 'Are you concerned about this? This looks really nasty for the agricultural sector.' 'No', was the response, 'no problem there.' So, initially, the opposition did not criticise the backpacker tax. We thought, 'The NFF is supporting this initiative.' We assumed they had been consulted and that they had in fact agreed with the proposition, only to learn, of course, that they had not been consulted. Indeed, no-one in the sector whatsoever had been consulted, which is just a disgrace. Had there been any modelling?

Ms Price interjecting—

The member for Barker still seems to not understand—and nor does the member for Durack, who has been pretty happy to intervene. I look forward to her contribution, remembering that, last week, she sat in this place and voted for 19 per cent. When the member for Durack, the member for Capricornia, the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and the rest of them voted for 19 per cent last week, they could not possibly have known they would have another opportunity to vote in this place on this tax.

Only last Thursday they were all prepared to impose a 19 per cent backpacker tax on their constituents, on their farming communities. Of course, as late as Sunday evening, the finance minister was telling us that 19 per cent was it and that no more negotiations would be entered into, only to be embarrassed less than 12 hours later when his Treasurer rolled out to say something different. But what those opposite do not understand is that backpackers who do not come here do not pay income tax. We know that they are falling off dramatically, and that is why horticulturalists are screaming for this government to help them. Nor do backpackers pay GST, if they are not here. Nor do they pay excise on things like alcohol. I think I can respectfully say they tend to consume a bit of it—and maybe a few cigarettes as well.

I will let those on the other side in on another secret. I have spoken with many of them over the years. I come from an area that has backpackers. Their parents tend to send them money as well. Most of them do not live only on their earnings. Certainly, they spend all their earnings while they are here, but most of them have a little bit of money sent from mum and dad as well. That is extra cash into the Australian economy. It is obvious that no-one on that side has even contemplated these matters.

I went to that point because I was about to say that there was no modelling on this measure before it was announced in the 2015 budget. There was no modelling on the impact on backpacker numbers and there was no modelling on the second-round effects on the broader economy. What sort of a genius government does that when backpackers are already falling off? It just defies any logic.

I heard the member for Barker say that his farmers are happy now. I doubt it, and I think he is going to get a bit of a surprise when he gets home—or, will it be a surprise? I think it will not be a surprise because he knows they are not happy. I wish the member for Mallee were here. I hope he is on the list. The member for Bendigo might be able to help me out there. Is he on the list? Surely the member for Mallee—

See this speech in context