David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. We're talking about tax. Let's start with the comments of the shadow Treasurer on this matter in no less a publication than his Hearts & Minds, a somewhat grandly-titled publication of 2013. He started out by saying:

… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.

And he is right. When the shadow Treasurer said that in Hearts & Minds back in 2013, he was right. He's often wrong—he's usually wrong—but, on this matter, he was right. He said:

At 30 per cent, our company tax rate is now above the OECD average … it is how the rate compares to that of our competitors that counts.

And he was right about that too. It's not overly complex when you think about it. If you're a company and you have a choice to invest in different places around the world, are you going to favour places where you have to pay a very high rate of tax or are you going to favour places where you pay a more competitive rate of tax? It's pretty obvious and it's set out in a very lucid fashion by the shadow Treasurer in Hearts & Minds. The opposition leader has also spoken at length on this issue. He did so in 2012 when he was the Assistant Treasurer. He spoke to ACOSS about company tax, and had some wise words for the ACOSS audience assembled on that day back in March of 2012. He said:

… corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.

…

Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.

A very sensible analysis. He said:

And because reducing the company rate is an economic growth instrument—

he was right about that too—

reducing the corporate tax rate … is also an investment in the Australian people—including people who might now be on welfare and require the services of ACOSS members.

Helping companies to grow improves employment and is good for the economy and is good for those workers for whom new jobs are created. That was a very, very sensible position for the opposition leader and shadow Treasurer to take.

But, of course, now we see this very, very transparent campaign to demonise any large company as somehow bad for the nation. The terms 'big end of town' or 'top end of town', you will be interested to know, have been used in the parliament in the last year more than 300 times. That suggests an ongoing campaign by those opposite to try to convey the idea that large companies are bad for Australia. But the reality is that large companies employ about 4 million Australians including thousands and thousands of people who live in my electorate. I don't find, certainly in my community—and I suspect the same would be the case around Australia—a sense that people want large companies to exit our shores. To the contrary, what people want is for large companies to invest in Australia and to create the millions and millions of jobs that they do. That's appropriate, and that's why this government is so supportive of policies that create competitive company tax rates.

Of course we have already passed the first round of the enterprise tax bill, which was opposed by those opposite. Those opposite say that if a company has revenue of $2 million or more, it is a big company which should not receive corporate tax relief. That's what those opposite say. Those opposite think that if a company has turnover of $2 million, it means that it makes $2 million of profit. But, of course, it doesn't, because most companies might have a profit margin of maybe five per cent or six per cent—something like that. So a company that's turning over $2 million might be making about $100,000, which is about the average household income in Australia. Those opposite say that is a large company that should not be entitled to corporate tax relief, and they voted against it. They voted against tax relief for a small company in suburban Sydney with $2.1 million in revenue. That is just the reality.

See this speech in context