Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. As with all tax law amendment bills, this bill has a number of schedules, in fact seven schedules in all, that make a variety of changes to the existing law, or clarify the law to correct errors or implement policy decisions. I will briefly run through each of those schedules.

The first schedule relates to the goods and services tax, specifically, to amend the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to ensure third-party payment adjustment provisions operate appropriately where there are third-party payments relating to a supply by a taxpayer that is not taxable or a supply or payment that is goods and services that is GST free, not connected with Australia or subject to a refund under the tourist refund scheme. That was outlined, as were all the other changes within this bill, within the explanatory memorandum. I note that the minister just seconds before the resumption of the debate tabled a correction to the explanatory memorandum. We will have a look at that, not having been provided with it prior to the commencement of the debate. We assume that it is minor in nature.

Whenever there is a tax law amendment bill that deals with GST issues it would be remiss of me not to remind those opposite, and indeed in this case the deputy chair, that it is good that the government is ensuring the integrity of the GST. It is a tax that they opposed vigorously back in 1999 and 2000. In fact it is now a little over 11 years and four months since former Prime Minister Mr Rudd declared in this House on 30 June 1999 that that day, because of the GST:

… will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice—an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians.

With each tax law amendment bill we see the integrity of the GST maintained, and it is good that we do see that. But it would be remiss of me not to point out the hypocrisy of those opposite.

Capital gains tax treatment of water entitlements and termination fees is dealt with in schedule 2 of the bill, as the explanatory memorandum points out. This schedule amends the income tax act of 1997 to provide for CGT rollover for taxpayers who replace an entitlement to water with one or more different entitlements, and some transitional measures associated with that.

The third schedule deals with two issues within three parts. Those two issues are: amendments to the taxation of financial arrangements provisions—part 1 of schedule 3 amends division 230 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the consequential transitional provisions inserted by the Tax Laws Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act 2009 to make minor policy refinements and technical amendments and corrections to the provisions. The second part of schedule 3 extends transitional arrangements relating to the application of the debt equity rules made by the New Business Tax System (Debt and Equity) Act 2001. The other area dealt with in schedule 3 is amendments to the foreign currency gains and losses provisions. As the explanatory memorandum outlines, part 3 of schedule 3 amends the foreign currency gains and losses provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend the scope of a number of compliance cost savings measures and to make technical amendments to ensure that the provisions operate as intended.

Schedule 4 deals with the issue of script for script alignment and, again, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to make it easier for takeovers and mergers regulated by the Corporations Act 2001 to qualify for the CGT script for script rollover. In the explanatory memorandum we are told with respect to those first four schedules that the financial cost is nil, unquantifiable or expected to be very minimal indeed.

Schedule 5 deals with an increase in the medical expenses tax offset claim threshold, as announced in the budget earlier this year. Essentially this increases the threshold above which a taxpayer may claim the medical expenses tax offset and begins a process of indexation. The financial impact of this is a gain to the budget in 2011-12 of $95 million, rising to $115 million in 2012-13 and $140 million thereafter.

Schedule 6 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to update the list of deductible gift recipients. As I indicated at the start, this sort of schedule is quite typical within this kind of legislation. It updates the deductible gift recipient list to include One Laptop per Child Australia Ltd. Other organisations on the list will include the Xanana Vocational Education Trust and the Mary MacKillop Canonisation Gift Fund.

Schedule 7 extends gift deductibility to volunteer fire brigades. It adds three new deductible gift recipient categories to the Income Tax Assessment Act. This will widen accessibility of deductible donations to all entities providing volunteer based emergency services, including volunteer fire brigades, as the explanatory memorandum points out. It also extends DGR status to state and territory government bodies that coordinate volunteer fire brigades and SESs. With respect to schedules 6 and 7, there is a small financial impact going forward as a result of adding those organisations to the deductible gift recipient list.

The opposition is not opposing the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010, which has a number of important measures within it and corrects important areas of law. It is something that needs to be passed through this House. I give notice, though, that later in the debate the shadow Treasurer will be moving an amendment not to any of the seven schedules which I have outlined that the opposition is not opposing but to add a schedule 8 to the bill to deal with some important transparency measures on issues of tax and government expenditure. He will speak next in the debate from our side of the chamber and he will outline the detail of the amendment and the coalition’s approach.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. As has already been stated, this bill contains seven schedules, and each schedule relates to a different aspect of tax law. I want to confine my remarks in this debate to schedules 6 and 7 of the bill. Schedule 6 adds the organisation One Laptop per Child to the list of eligible tax deductible gift recipients. The One Laptop per Child organisation was established in 2008 and aims to improve the lives of Indigenous children living in disadvantaged communities in remote and rural Australia by providing them with specially designed laptop computers. Schedule 6 also changes the name of the Clontarf Foundation Inc. to Clontarf Foundation. Clontarf Foundation dates back to the year 2000 and works to improve the health, education and employment and life skills of disadvantaged youth, predominantly Indigenous boys, through a number of Australian Rules football academies in Western Australia and now in other states.

Redressing Indigenous disadvantage in Australia has proven to be an extremely difficult goal for governments, both state and federal, over several decades. That, however, should in no way deter our determination to do so. I refer back to the apology given in this House by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008, where not only did he apologise to the stolen generation but he also outlined much of the disadvantage that is faced by Indigenous people across this country. At that time he committed to providing parliament with an annual statement as to how this government was going to close the gap, as he put it—a strategy that was embarked on by the government to try and redress the disadvantage. I will come back later to some comments he made about the Clontarf Foundation.

Access to laptops for young people in remote areas will provide them with access to the rest of the world and the knowledge and opportunities that come with that. In remote areas, having access to the internet is in itself difficult enough. Having access to the kinds of computers that can be taken from one place to another and be used in those remote areas is also critical. That is what is special about this particular program—the computers have been specially designed and will be made available to young people, particularly Indigenous young people, in remote areas. Access to the internet will ensure that they become much more understanding of the world around them and more understanding of the opportunities and the options available to them. If they want to take advantage of those opportunities and options, it will give them access to the educational tools they will require in order to do so. It is fundamental and so important to providing them with the assistance that they need in order to change their life from one of disadvantage to one of advantage.

I believe every member in this House has at some stage or another talked about the importance of education and how education is the foundation of enabling a person to live a full and prosperous life. If we want our young people to be better educated, particularly Indigenous people, who are already struggling, then this is one of the programs that we should support, because it goes a long way in doing so. Providing the Clontarf Foundation with tax deduction eligibility will enable the foundation to raise additional revenue, which will in turn be used to provide those computers. However, this particular bill simply puts in place a change of name for this program. It is a program that I endorse and very much support.

The government has already invested over $2 billion in the school computer program and has committed $43 billion to the National Broadband Network, which I note was debated in this House again earlier today. Both the school computer program and the broader National Broadband Network are very critical to the future of this nation and for the Indigenous people in disadvantaged areas.

For disadvantaged young people in remote and rural Australia, even the investment into the National Broadband Network and the $2 billion plus investment into the school computer program will be of little benefit if they do not have access to a computer that is appropriate for their circumstances. That is the point that I made earlier today. One Laptop per Child Australia was founded in 2008. Since 2008, the organisation has delivered over 1,500 laptops to 20 disadvantaged schools in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. It hopes to provide up to 20,000 laptops by 2012. The organisation will be in a significantly better position to attract private and corporate donors to raise critical funds to meet its 20,000 laptop objective by being granted deductible gift recipient status. The listing of One Laptop per Child is expected to cost the Australian government $2.4 million. In my view, that is a justifiable and very good use of public funds. The Commonwealth is also already investing $7 million over four years from 2009-10 on improving internet access in Indigenous communities through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Public Internet Access.

I said a moment ago that, when it comes to Indigenous disadvantage, we need to do a lot more to improve educational opportunities for Indigenous young people around the country. In 1995, the percentage of Indigenous young people who completed year 12 was 30.7 per cent. The figure at the moment is 46.5 per cent. It is still only just over half of what the national figure is for non-Indigenous young people in this country. We still have a long way to go. Any program or project that should assist us in getting there should be supported.

The Clontarf Foundation has been successful in changing the lives of Indigenous youth by combining their passion and ability to play Australian Rules Football with education, discipline, self-esteem and life skills training programs. The Clontarf program has partnered with schools in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria, establishing over 30 academies across those states. I want to talk a little bit more about the Clontarf Foundation because it links very closely with the closing the gap statement made by the former Prime Minister in 2008 and when he gave his annual response to parliament on 11 February 2010. He said:

Overall, the programs have achieved an average attendance rate of 79 per cent, six percentage points above the average rate for all Indigenous students in the schools. So I am pleased to announce today that in 2010 an additional 17 sports academies will commence across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Victoria. This will support about 1,000 students, and will bring the total number of students in the program to some 10,000. Ten of these new academies will be for girls.

That was former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a statement in this House on 11 February 2010. He was talking specifically about the Clontarf Foundation. It is terrific that it now includes women as well as men. It has grown to 34 or 36 academies now around Australia. That highlights that it is working. If the foundation needs to be supported by giving it tax deductibility status, then we should give it that, because it is achieving the desired objectives. The former Prime Minister talked about the attendance rates of the students who participate at those academies being higher than for those students who do not. In other words, linking Australia Rules football training with education works and we should support it. I certainly do.

The new academies will be established in Broome, Fitzroy Crossing, Bunbury and North Albany in Western Australia; West Arnhem, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory; Mooroopna, Bendigo and Ballarat in Victoria; and Townsville in Queensland.

Schedule 7 extends access to tax deductible donations to all volunteer fire brigades. There are more than 6,200 volunteer fire brigades in Australia. Until recently they were all considered public benevolent institutions and therefore eligible for taxation deductibility for donations. Recently the Commissioner of Taxation ruled that most volunteer fire brigades do not strictly meet the public benevolent institutions criteria and therefore would not be eligible for taxation deductibility for donations. The amendment in schedule 7 enables volunteer fire brigades to continue to receive tax deductible donations.

All of us in this place know only too well about the invaluable service provided by our volunteer firefighters. We also know that they can always do with more resources, that they are not-for-profit organisations and that they embark on much of their own fundraising. I suspect that there would be few organisations that most Australians could confidently grant donations to knowing that the money would be used 100 per cent for the benefit of the community. That in itself is important, given some of the concerns that have been raised in recent times about charitable organisations. Funds raised by volunteer fire organisations are used entirely by those organisations and ultimately do benefit the community. As I said a moment ago, all of us in this place would be familiar with their work.

I take a moment to acknowledge the work of the two volunteer fire organisations in my own electorate of Makin. I refer to the Tea Tree Gully Country Fire Service and the Salisbury Country Fire Service. The Tea Tree Gully Country Fire Service was established in 1939. It has existed for over 70 years serving that community. Just looking at its last annual report, the service attended 238 community call-outs. Those call-outs would have included things like grass fires, vehicle accidents, car fires, animal rescues, community events and the like—probably the same as that which all similar organisations do around Australia. The Salisbury Country Fire Service was established in 1943—four years later. It attends something like 500 call-outs, on average, every year—again, similar types of call-outs. I am aware that both of those services also participated in fire operations interstate when the demand was there and their colleagues and mates interstate needed support. They both travelled, whether it was to Canberra during the Canberra bushfires or to Victoria last year, to assist with those fires. They are always ready and willing to support communities wherever the need arises. In fact, they would put in thousands of community volunteer hours per year.

Organisations like that are deserving of tax deductibility. For that reason again, I support the change, made in these amendments, to enable them to continue to receive deductions for any fundraising efforts that they enter into and therefore any funds that are provided to them as a result of those efforts. Their service to the communities, at both a local and a national level, is invaluable. Once again, I commend the work of the two organisations in my own electorate and, likewise, the work such organisations all do around Australia.

I said at the outset that I only wanted to speak about schedules 6 and 7. I have done so. I believe that these amendments simply restore changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act that were intended as a result of other acts of parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague the member for Casey has explained the key provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010, which we are debating today, so I will not go through the details again. Today I want to move an amendment with the insertion of a new schedule 8 providing tax receipts to individual taxpayers. The coalition went to the election with a full suite of policies to further improve our taxation system, and we intend to push for fairer, lower and simpler taxes. One element, which is key, is transparency. Australians work hard to pay their taxes. The coalition knows that every dollar collected in individual income tax is a dollar that a hardworking family cannot spend on other things, like housing, food, education and health. Tax reduces the welfare of the taxpayer when it is not put to good use. The coalition believes that it is individuals themselves who make the best decisions on the use of their money.

Having said that, Australians will willingly pay their taxes when they believe that the money will be well spent. They know that there is value to the community as a whole in having well-run public services. They know that there are needy people who deserve income support. They are willing to do their bit for the public good. But there is an implicit agreement with the government: taxpayers will say that they are willing to forgo some of their income for the public good, but they want to be assured that their money is being well spent. Taxpayers do not have a good appreciation of where the tax they pay is spent by the government. The information is publicly available in budget papers, but these are not easily accessed and not easily well understood. At budget time we see these pie charts indicating where money is spent, but they are talking in billions of dollars. Billions of dollars is a hell of a lot of money, and people really struggle to understand what it means in the total amount of tax they pay. How much of the $20,000 they may pay in annual income tax is actually going for social welfare? How much is actually going on Medicare? How much is actually going on education?

We believe that taxpayers should be better informed. We want to make it easier for people to access this sort of information. The intent of this amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act is to explicitly require the ATO to inform individual taxpayers where their tax paid during the year has been spent and to inform individual taxpayers of the total Commonwealth net debt in aggregate and their individual share. We believe that this greater transparency will improve accountability of government spending and debt. In short, we would be saying, ‘Firstly, thank you for paying this amount of tax’—be it $20,000—‘and, secondly, this is how the government has divided up your $20,000. A certain amount has gone in welfare and so on.’ It is not hard to do at all, because it is simply based on proportions. In that regard, the Taxation Office knows exactly how much people pay in income tax in net terms, and I do not think it is a bad thing to thank them for their contribution and then properly inform them of where that money went.

The amendment, which we may get the chance to talk about at the consideration in detail stage, gives quite a bit of detail and properly informs individuals of the challenges ahead. It is part of a deal that is so necessary to improve transparency and, at the end of the day, to properly inform Australians of how their tax would be better spent. When we go into consideration in detail I will formally move the motion, but it has been distributed in my name.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010 we have had some provisions outlined today. I would like to comment on some of the comments made earlier by the member for Makin, in particular the provisions of the tax laws amendments and the need to have those requirements in place and how important those particular amendments are. Without a doubt, the ones he mentioned and the applicability of those are very important. When we look at tax laws amendments and many that the government have put forward since being in government we have certainly seen some major advances in improving our tax system. We continue to do that by ensuring that we approach issues like economic prosperity and job security for people and by implementing cost-of-living measures. We certainly know how important tax laws amendments are, particularly for everyday Australians. The government have been very committed to ensuring that we have very good tax laws in place. I am happy to speak about many of the actions that the government have taken on tax amendments in terms of cost-of-living improvements for many Australians and about how we have been very committed to ensuring that people can access better cost-of-living initiatives by understanding the pressures that are on many Australians and the situations they face. We made that commitment and we will continue to do so, to ensure that Australians can access better initiatives in relation to their cost-of-living expenses. I reiterate the outstanding job the government have done since we have been in government.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We certainly have.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We certainly have. I commend the bill to the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010. The Daily Telegraph features on the front page, as well as on two other pages, articles on ‘Selling the farm’. I am very familiar with the dairy industry. All five of the processors were Australian owned, prior to deregulation. Now only one of the five is Australian owned. I would say that, probably by Christmas—most certainly in the new year—two-thirds, maybe three-quarters, of the Australian sugar industry will be in foreign hands. Prior to deregulation the sugar industry was entirely owned by Australian corporations and Australian farmers. Here we have the sale of a large number of water rights—‘Murray-Darling water licences sold in 2008-09; $55 million worth of water rights are being sold’—in other words, Australian farmland on a massive scale is being sold as we talk at present. Forty per cent, arguably over 50 per cent, of our meat-processing industry was entirely Australian owned until about 20 years ago.

It amazes me that very few people in this parliament seem to appreciate that we actually have a trade surplus, which is quite remarkable because we have hardly ever had a trade surplus in the last 20 or 30 years since Mr Keating started this ridiculous marketism, which is fine if someone else in the world is doing it. But since nobody else is, it is the act of an imbecile. It was undertaken by the Keating government and then carried on by the Liberal-National Party government and is, again, being continued on by the current ALP government.

With respect to the burning question of minerals, all six of our major mining companies—and I personally come out of the mining industry, not out of the cattle industry—were Australian owned: Normandy, North, BHP, Western Mining Corporation and Mount Isa Mines. Now they are all foreign owned. They account for about 80 per cent of Australia’s entire mineral production.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just ask the member for Kennedy to hold for a moment; I have waited a few minutes. Can you help me out by indicating how this links to the tax bill before the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today it is being made easier for people to sell their water rights in the main to the government. But one of the catchy pieces in this bill—and the minister can clarify it—is that it also makes it easier for foreign people to take that water. The most important aspect of this is that if the government buys—as it intends to and as the opposition intend to, if they go in there—15 per cent of Australia’s agricultural production, but four or five farms close down, as happened with our dairy factory, then the dairy factory will no longer be viable. There is not enough rice going through the rice factory, there is not enough cotton going through the cotton gin and there is not enough beef going through the meatworks to keep it open. So they close down. Then your cost structures become much higher because you have to send the product a lot further away because your local sugar mill has closed down.

The facilitating of the sale of the Murray-Darling water rights is further fuelling this movement. Farmers are going broke and they have no alternative but to sell. They do not want to sell, but they are watching five and six generations of their families going up in smoke. If you cannot make a quid you have to sell. That goes for water rights or anything else. What we are saying to you is: you do not realise that when you make these decisions you are putting another nail in the coffin of your country. We will just be a land of serfs working for foreign landlords. If the labour market is again deregulated we will be increasingly working for nothing.

If you cannot see that your dairy industry—the biggest of your agricultural industries—is now foreign owned, if you cannot see that your 15th biggest export item, sugar, is now foreign owned, that 66 per cent of your entire nation’s earnings are coming from your mining companies and 80 per cent of that is now foreign owned, and you are still doing nothing about it, and you are leaving Woolworths and Coles out there to screw the farmers down further, then they will sell off more and more and more. It will not only be their water licences but they will be selling their land and anything else that they can sell. This is the farming sector as well as other sectors of our economy.

Today I will, once again, be a minority of one, or two or three, but people in latter years will say, ‘Wasn’t he right?’ and ‘Who sat in this parliament and let the entire nation be sold off? Who did it?’ Did galahs out in Gunnedah do it; did they?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Zappia interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are doing it and you are most certainly continuing on exactly the same as your predecessors. Do you want to take any bets on whether the sugar applications for sale will be knocked back? Do you want to take a bet for a thousand bucks down on the table tomorrow? I would willingly part with it if I knew I could retain ownership in Australia of these assets.

To some degree you cannot maintain an asset if it is going broke. I have said again, again and again in this place that it is impossible for our farmers. They have to sell their water rights because they cannot make any money out of farming. Why can’t they? Because the only country without subsidies or tariffs in agriculture is Australia. Get your latest OECD report out—39 per cent OECD subsidy tariff level—and the subsidy tariff level in Australia is four per cent. If you think our farmers can run a 100-metre race and give their competitors a 30-metre start you do not know much about farming or any other damn thing in the competitive and economic world that is out there.

I most certainly feel very, very strongly in opposition to this bill. If the House does not divide in the vote on this bill I would like my opposition to be registered on it because I see it as another nail in the coffin of agriculture in Australia. Not only has this parliament sat idly by and watched this nation’s great assets, which were built up by our forebears, being flogged off overseas but they have watched agriculture sink to a point where within five years the nation will not be able to feed itself. Isn’t that something to be proud of as a nation—that we cannot even feed ourselves! I disagreed with the report last week that said that that is the situation now. I do not think it is. But within five years there is absolutely no doubt that it will be. That is what we have fallen to in Australia.

I have not done the figures recently and I do not know if the figures are available. Within two years of the dairy industry deregulation, arguably three years, this nation went to a farmer committing suicide every four days in this country. This is something for this parliament to be proud of! I am not. I am ashamed to have my name associated with this parliament over a period of 16 years. We sold off the farm. We sold off our mining industry. We closed down our manufacturing industry. We have oppressed our farmers to a point where one of them decided that it was better not to live in this world at all. The Australia that you have created is such a horrific place for farmers that one of them thought that he would be better out of it, and he exited in the most terrible way possible.

I conclude by saying that we are burying so many now in North Queensland. As the coffin is going down we play that magnificent and beautiful song written by our northern son, Graeme Connors. The song, which was sung at the Opera House to commemorate 200 years of Australia, is Let the cane fields burn and says:

Well let the cane fields burn

Let the flames rise

Let the politicians and the bankers in the city look up

In wonder at the glow in the skies

Let the cane fields burn—

as the bloke incinerates himself in the middle of his cane fields. I know two people who have done that.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to debate what will be adjourned. This legislation has been on the Notice Paper for some period of time. We flagged in the election campaign that we wanted to have a receipt sent to taxpayers so that they would properly be informed, firstly, of how much tax they had paid, secondly, where that money had been allocated for particular purposes, such as health, or education or social security and so on and, thirdly, the amount of net debt that they as an individual taxpayer may be obliged to repay.

From our perspective it is all well and good to talk about transparency and accountability, but the two times we tried to have transparency and accountability in relation to the taxation system of Australia the Labor Party sought to close us down. The first time was when we sought the release of documentation on the Henry tax review. We flagged clearly during the election campaign that we wanted to see the release of all the information. The Secretary of the Treasury sought legal advice that said that this chamber did not have the power to order the release of information—a Solicitor-General opinion that is questionable at best but obviously bought the interests of some of the Independents, and they chose on that occasion to oppose letting the sunlight in.

We are not talking about letting the sunlight in on over $300 billion of revenue; we are talking about letting the sunlight in for individuals whether they pay $10,000, $20,000 or $30, 000, or whatever the case may be, of income tax a year. They have a right to know exactly to the dollar on a proportional basis how much tax they pay and where that tax goes—it is limited to personal income tax, I accept that. It is based on an allocation of the proportional nature of government expenditure as against income tax itself. It obviously does not take into account other taxes. But it is not about the total tax revenue; it is about where the money is spent.

It is all well and good for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to seek to adjourn a debate on a bill that has been sitting on the Notice Paper. This Labor Party says it wants to get on with the job of governing. For crying out loud, here is a chance to govern. Here is a chance to send every Australian taxpayer a receipt for the amount of money they pay in tax and explain to them, quite properly, where every dollar of tax will be going on individual programs. Normally, if someone sends you something, you send a thank-you note. Normally, if someone sends you a gift, you send a thank-you. Even though the payment of tax is required, it is a gift by individuals. Look at all the solemn faces of those from the ATO and from Treasury over in the officials’ box. I know you all work so hard, but let me say that the tax you administer is indeed a gift from the taxpayers and it is a damn good idea to say individually to taxpayers: ‘Thank you for sending me $20,000 of your hard-earned income. Thank you for working up to half the year—the first six months of a financial year—for the Australian government.’ That is roughly where it ends up when people have to pay nearly half their income in tax; they spend the first six months of the year working for the government.

A mate of mine has a date in his calendar—some time in December—where he says that from then on he can start working for himself and his family. I call it the ‘for me and my family day’—the day when I start earning money that goes to my family rather than to the Australian government. Kerry Packer said something like: ‘Of course, I’d minimise my tax. Why would I pay more tax than I should? Look at the way the buggers are spending it.’ You might remember that, Deputy Speaker, having been in the parliament at that time when Kerry Packer appeared before what would probably have been the communications committee of the House of Representatives. They still occasionally run that footage of Kerry Packer. He was right: why would you give the buggers anymore money than they quite properly deserve?

If we are going to let the sunlight in, if we are going to have proper processes in this House, why not give every Australian taxpayer a receipt? The receipt would start off, ‘Thank you for paying this much tax this year and, by the way, this is where we sent your tax.’ It would cover everything, including the different classes of pensions. I think a lot of Australians want to know that and they could rightly be pleased that a certain amount of their income tax had gone to pay for disability pensions, Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, defence to protect their families or education to help educate their children or someone else’s children. I think Australians want to know that, I really do. It is all part of transparency. In particular, it will make people appreciate that when government’s spend money, it is taxpayers’ money. It does not come from a money tree. I carry around in my wallet a $5 billion banknote issued by the central bank of Zimbabwe, who could teach the Americans, the British and the Europeans a bit about printing money. The Zimbabweans have been doing it for some period of time. What most concerns me is that that banknote is quite a modest sum, that $5 billion. One of my staff has hanging above her desk a $1 trillion banknote. The numbers are so large they are meaningless.

People want to know what they are contributing individually. When we talk in this place about billions and trillions, and any variations, Australians say, ‘That is a huge figure’—and it is—‘but it is hard to contextualise given that we have an economy of over $1.3 trillion.’ But people know what it means to them. Even today I was given information that suggests that, on average, if you took all bank fees paid in Australia and averaged them out across households, each household pays more than $5,000 in bank fees.

This is why this matter should not be adjourned, because this government have had it on the Notice Paperand we have flagged it—for some extended period of time. The government have formed a little war council here in the chamber, including the member for Hunter. I feel for the member for Hunter.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney should wind up as quickly as possible because, under the standing orders, this is not a matter which ought to have been permitted to be debated. I think the honourable member has—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was instructed that it was able to be debated.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member has already spoken. I was not in the chair at the time the honourable member was given the call, but if the honourable member could wind up as quickly as possible that would facilitate the business of the House.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel for your position, Mr Deputy Speaker, although it is, I understand, a separate motion to the actual motion that was before the chair, which was the continuation of the debate.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the chair is that the debate be adjourned.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well there was a motion before that that I spoke on, so this is a separate motion and I have not previously spoken on the motion that the debate be adjourned.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, if the member for North Sydney could facilitate the business of the House and finish expeditiously—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to facilitate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it just illustrates the fact that the government does not know what it is doing. It did not have a second speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, in the chamber, had to get up and, indeed, she struggled to talk about a bill that she did not understand. I would welcome—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the honourable member for North Sydney has made his point and he should at this point resume his seat.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what basis, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis that under the standing orders this debate ought not to be proceeding. This is not a matter upon which, under the standing orders, a debate is permitted.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Joe, this is a procedural matter. You can’t speak on it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you could finish up expeditiously. I think you have made your point.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do so. I am disappointed that the debate is not proceeding. I say that again. It is embarrassing for the government that they have had to adjourn, but we look forward to expeditiously dealing with the tax receipt issue and pointing out the fact that this government should not be running away from greater transparency in the delivery of taxation services.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Bradbury’s) be agreed to.