Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State (House)) Share this | Hansard source

That was their policy. Those opposite say that's rubbish. It was actually their policy. It was the policy in the budget. It's in the budget papers. Mathias Cormann actually said on Insiders that plan A was to give a big-business tax cut. It's only just dawning on those opposite that their policy for some time was to give a tax cut to big business in this country. Anyone who's wondering about the state of those opposite need only listen to this commentary from up the back. 'Nobody told us we had a big-business tax cut in the budget'. Weren't you listening? It's just absolutely incredible.

On Sunday Mathias Cormann, the finance minister, actually said that everybody knows what their plan A was. Plan A, of course, was that big-business tax cut, which would have seen $85 billion flow to the biggest businesses in this country, including $17 billion to the four big banks alone. We opposed that. We proudly opposed those tax cuts for big business and we prevailed. On this side of the House we're making a habit of winning the economic arguments. We're making a habit of winning the arguments over fairness and over responsibility. We know and the Australian people know that plan A, plan B and plan C of those opposite are to always give the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least. The difference between the two sides is that we have actually always said that, when you've got a budget in bad nick, as it is now, where debt has doubled under the life of the Liberal government, you need to be responsible with public dollars and you need to give tax breaks where they can do the most good. We've actually said that all along. We've always prioritised small business over big business, and those opposite cannot make the same claim.

As I said, within 24 hours of the government substantially shifting their position, we hadn't just said that we would support what's being proposed; we said how we would pay for it. We would make room in our alternative budget by shifting our Australian Investment Guarantee back a year so that we could afford to pay for what is being proposed here. We're now into the sixth day since the government announced this change of policy and we still haven't heard how those opposite intend to pay for it. We've been treated to this ridiculous spectacle of the finance minister of this country trying to pretend that the money for these tax breaks for small and medium-sized businesses doesn't come at a cost to the budget. It is an absurd proposition when we know it costs $3.2 billion.

I'm at great risk now because I'm about to admit to having been an avid watcher of the Pyne & Marles show—as everyone was! I was watching Pyne & Marles on Friday—we all were—and Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, actually said, 'Well, it costs us $3.2 billion and it's money well spent' at the same time as the finance minister was saying, 'It's not a spend; it doesn't come as a cost to the budget because it's tax forgone.' Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister of this country describes his own government as a muppet show when they can't even agree whether $3.2 billion for small and medium-sized businesses comes at a cost to the budget?

I know that's outed me as an avid watcher of Pyne & Marles, but that's what the member for Sturt said on his own show on Friday.

If on that side of the House they can't even agree as to whether this comes at a cost to the budget, is it any wonder that national debt has skyrocketed on their watch? When those opposite came to government, gross debt was $280 billion. It's now $541 billion. When they came to office, net debt was $175 billion. It's now twice that. With good global conditions, favourable economic conditions and moneys rolling through the door, they've still got debt that has doubled on their watch. When you see this bizarre spectacle, this argument about whether or not these tax breaks come at a cost to the budget, you can understand more.

As I said, small business and medium-sized business will get the same tax cuts under Labor and Liberal. Under Labor they'll also get the Australian Investment Guarantee, and under Labor those tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses will not come at the expense of our schools and hospitals and will not see skyrocketing debt skyrocket even further. That's because our approach, for some years now, has consistently been to do three things: to make the tax system fairer, to pay down debt and to make room for the things that we, as a society, should truly value—things like preschool for three-year-olds and four-year-olds; things like proper, needs based funding for our schools; things like proper investment in the hospitals of this country. That is our approach to the budget: to make room for those things that we, as a society, truly value.

Because we've taken that responsible approach, because we've struck the best balance between fairness and responsibility, we have the capacity to give small and medium-sized businesses the tax breaks they need and deserve. We have done the work—and it's a tribute to the member for McMahon, the Leader of the Opposition and others—to make it possible for us to invest in small business; to invest in our schools, hospitals and preschools; and to do the right thing by the Australian people. Those opposite can't make the same claim.

See this speech in context