Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and

(2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay.

You heard today in question time from the government that somehow the parliament is frustrating their failure last night to extend the instant asset write-off for small businesses throughout Australia, plunging small businesses into unknown territory in relation to their taxation arrangements. What the Treasurer failed to state in question time today was that, in fact, the opposition moved a similar motion just a couple of months ago to bring on this bill for debate—to bring on an extension to the instant asset write-off to give small businesses the certainty that they need. We moved a motion just a couple of months ago to give small businesses the certainty that they rightly expect from the government in relation to their taxation arrangements, yet the government voted against that motion. So we're giving the government another opportunity today. If they are fair dinkum—if what they were saying last night was truthful rather than a monumental blunder or, even worse, a calculated decision to rip away a tax incentive for small businesses—then they should support this motion.

The Treasurer claimed at the National Press Club today that somehow the parliament has delayed or stalled this bill. He's blamed the Senate. He's blamed the opposition. But, as I have just outlined, the government themselves voted against a motion to bring this bill to the House.

We now are on the eve of a new financial year and on the eve of an election, and the government has cruelly ripped away a tax incentive for small businesses. We're not talking about major businesses in this country; we're talking about small and family businesses who are making decisions today about investments for the new financial year with absolutely no certainty of what those tax arrangements will be.

We know, for example, that this government cruelly reduced both eligibility for and the quantum of the instant asset write-off. We know that no-one in the government has an interest in small business. The small-business sector made that very clear last night in their assessment of this budget. Imagine going to a budget and telling the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in this country and the millions of people who work in small businesses—the engine room of our economy—that you are cruelly and in a calculated way ripping away a tax incentive that, quite frankly and quite rightly, they have come to expect. Sure, they were very unhappy when the government reduced eligibility for and reduced the quantum of the instant asset write-off. But they would not in their wildest dreams have imagined that, looking at the budget last night, that would be entirely ripped away to the point now where the instant asset write-off has dropped to $1,000 for the next financial year.

We saw today in question time the Treasurer, slippery as an eel, using very cute language, but he couldn't confirm that there was money in the budget, which is why this motion is so important and why this suspension of standing orders is urgent. Can I emphasise to the government, to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Small Business, who didn't seem to have a clue what was going on in question time, that this is urgent. The urgency for small business is what drives this suspension of standing and sessional orders now.

Small-business owners in this country should not be put in a position where they are potentially buying that piece of plant equipment, buying the new coffee machine for the cafe or installing new equipment in their hair salon—myriad businesses. You can think of 10,000 business types and the assets they're thinking about. They don't just go into Myer one day, pick these things off the shelf, walk back to the business and install them. They've got to make these decisions months in advance. For many small businesses, a decision about whether or not to upgrade that piece of equipment, buy that asset, make that additional investment in the productivity of their people—their employees, who they often treat like family more than staff members—or make investments to make their businesses more productive is a decision that, in the end, may be catalysed by the fact that they can instantly write it off for tax purposes, not depreciate it over its effective life. I would have thought that members opposite knew that. I would have thought members opposite would be on the phone now to the Treasurer, saying, 'Hold on; I've got thousands of businesses in my electorate that are being left high and dry.'

This fake excuse that the parliament has somehow held it up is utterly wrong. It's misleading the House and is the worst alibi possible. Just admit it. To the government: you either made a calculated decision to remove this from the budget or you have overlooked it. Either way, the suspension of standing orders is absolutely crucial—

See this speech in context