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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2):

(1)    Clause 2, page 3 (before line 1), table item 15, omit “Schedule 7”, substitute “Schedules 7 and 8”.

(2)    Schedule 7, page 47 (after line 3), add:

Schedule 8—Providing tax receipts to individual taxpayers

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936

1 After section 174

Insert:

174A Taxation receipt to be provided with notice of assessment

        (1)    A notice of assessment for an individual under section 174 for the financial year ending 30 June 2011 or any later financial year must be accompanied by a taxation receipt, setting out:

             (a)    a break-down of how the amount of the assessment was spent on different functions in the financial year (calculated by applying the proportion of the Budget expenditure on each function to the amount of the assessment); and

             (b)    the level of Australian Government net debt.

        (2)    A taxation receipt for subsection (1) must, at a minimum, contain the information shown in the following table:

Note:   The amounts specified for the purposes of table items 5 to 9 are to be calculated by reference to the nominal proportion of Budget expenditure constituted by each function.

I am disappointed that the government is not accepting our amendments. You have got a lean and hungry look there, old Billy!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one would say that about you!

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

We know you! I’m on Kevin’s side! I’ve always been on his side!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Shorten interjecting

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

No, I’m on his side. We’re all on his side.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s the Sunrise—

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

I know it’s Sunrise. I give in.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the season of goodwill has started early!

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

I have a soft spot for the member for Griffith. Unlike the Assistant Treasurer, I do have a soft spot for him. He is a good man. Just keep your hands well displayed there, Bill! Keep them up; keep them above the table! We do not know what you have in your holster, old son; we can only guess! He is the one who has to go through the metal detector on the way into parliament! You have to be careful of the smiley ones! I am having a great time paying out on this guy, but I had better get back to the amendments.

The amendments are about giving Australians proper information. We all recall the sanctimonious line from the now Prime Minister that the sunshine was going to come in. The member for Lyne repeated it: ‘Let the sun shine. Let us have a transparent and open parliament.’ When we first tested the government on that, asking for all the information on the Henry tax review, what did they do? They closed it down. Ken Henry ran off and got flawed legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor that the clerks of the parliament were lying and that the parliament did not have the power to order the release of all the documents on the Henry tax review. Lord knows about the Henry tax review. To be fair to the member for Griffith, he was set up by that lean and hungry Treasurer, who went to him and said, ‘We are going to have this tax review.’ It was the Treasurer who came up with the idea of the mining tax. What a disaster that was.

Australians have the right to know where their taxes are going. It was the coalition, as part of its transparency platform in the lead-up to the election, that outlined that every Australian taxpayer should get a tax receipt from the tax office. I emphasise that it would cost the tax office very little to send a letter out to people saying, ‘Thank you for paying tax.’ Our mock tax receipt says:

The Australian Government thanks you for the $20,000 tax* you have paid for 2010-11. This tax receipt details where your taxes have been spent (based on a nominal distribution of Budget expenses by function) and the level of Australian Government debt.

We also tell the taxpayer how much the level of Australian net debt is, which is a damn good idea, and we tell them, if they are paying $20,000 in tax, exactly where that money would go—for example, $6,480 on welfare, $3,200 on health, $1,860 on education, $1,180 on defence, $280 on transport and communications, $540 on public debt interest and so on. So we are putting to the Australian taxpayer exactly where their money is being spent by the Australian government.

The benefit of this is that it makes it more explicable than the budget itself, which deals in billions and billions of dollars, and it explains exactly to those people who pay the tax where the money is going and how reliable and trustworthy the government is. That is probably why the government want to oppose these amendments. They do not want disclosure. They do not want to tell the Australian people where they are spending their money, because that is the Labor Party. They spend. They are very good at that. They are accomplished. They are world leaders in that regard. But I would say that the Australian people do want to know where that money is going.

This is as much a challenge for the Labor Party as it is for the Independents. Isn’t this about transparency? Isn’t this about honesty? Isn’t this being upfront with the Australian people? I know that this is immensely popular out there with the Australian people. They do want to know where their money is going. They do want to know how the government is spending their money. If the Labor Party were serious about transparency and honesty and if they were serious not just about Sunrise but about sunshine then I would say to them that they should support this sensible amendment which will cost very little to implement but, at the end of the day, will give Australians more information about how their money is being spent.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be rejecting these amendments.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just ask the opposition to move over their emotional shock and surprise. It is a little ironic getting advice from the opposition about transparency to people. I remember that when they put through—and the member for Mayo will remember this well because he was one of the architects of Work Choices—their industrial relations anti-worker legislation they made it a lot harder for workers to get information off their pay slips. So it is a little rich now to get advice about taxation information when in fact we know the colour of the coalition. When they are in power, they go after workers and they do not put information on pay slips. Talk of transparency from the opposition is inconsistent with their proven track record. The member for Mayo is a very clever, cunning operator. He understands exactly—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the word ‘cunning’. The information that the opposition wants to include on where taxpayers’ money is spent is currently in the public domain. I understand perfectly well that the opposition would like a cheat sheet, because it would help them in what they do. But the budget papers are available on the internet. This would merely duplicate existing information. This is a legislative amendment version of the Manager of Opposition Business’s constant inane requests in this place to table newspaper clippings, which are already on the public record. Budget updates will mean that the information on the tax receipt would differ depending on which day taxpayers received their assessment. Something printed today may not reflect the precise circumstances in the updated information of a modern government.

The member for North Sydney’s proposal also does not accurately reflect the significant contribution other taxes, such as business taxes, make to funding welfare, health, schools, highways, the environmental projects so unbeloved of the opposition, consular services, defending our country and so on and so forth. Furthermore, if accepted, the opposition’s proposed amendments would come at a significant cost and increase complexity for the Australian Taxation Office. They would certainly need to explore the legal implications of providing this great big paper chase.

Other points which should be made when one considers the merit of the opposition’s amendments is that if taxpayers are not satisfied with the published allocation—in other words, they do not agree with the information they have received in what I have to say is a fairly unsophisticated, Hockeyesque format on a single piece of paper—we could see all sorts of litigation with the ATO. This would also have significant resource implications. I would remind the shadow Treasurer of the law of unintended consequences.

The implementation of the shadow Treasurer’s amendments will mean that we have the tax file numbers of millions of pay-as-you-go taxpayers floating around raising security concerns about information integrity. The reality is that there is no policy substance to these amendments. Rather, what we see is an attempt to grandstand and an ill-fated attempt to demonstrate continuing irrelevance to the process of legislation in this parliament.

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

On Monday the shadow Treasurer said that he would move these amendments and the government froze, despite the fact that the shadow Treasurer foreshadowed these very initiatives during the election—simple initiatives that say to Australian taxpayers as shareholders of Australia, ‘You deserve to know how your taxes are being spent.’ After the shadow Treasurer foreshadowed that he would move these very straightforward and not complex amendments that say to every taxpayer, ‘We will tell you how your taxes are spent’—something that is most basic in a tax system and certainly, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out, most basic in a new paradigm of openness where we are going to let the sunshine in; in fact, we were going to tear the roof off the House of Representatives—what did the government do? The government closed down debate on their own legislation on Monday and the contribution we have just heard from the Assistant Treasurer is, amazingly, the product of 48 hours work. For 48 hours, they have been trying to come up with a ragbag of excuses on how to say to Australian taxpayers, ‘We are not going to tell you how your individual taxes are spent.’ It is as pure and simple as that.

The shadow Treasurer’s amendments are very straightforward. They say, ‘For a given amount of tax you pay, we will tell you how that money is spent proportionately within the budget.’ As the shadow Treasurer pointed out, it includes all areas of expenditure, including net debt. Obviously, this is something the government is sensitive about. We think that for taxpayers to be able to access that information is sensible and basic. The Assistant Treasurer said that all this information is available. Forty-eight hours of work and presumably advice from the Taxation Office and he has got it completely wrong. The information on general spending is available and the pie charts are available, but what is not available is the amounts on a given amount of tax paid by an individual. That is the purpose of these amendments. As the shadow Treasurer said, if someone has paid $20,000 in tax, notionally here are the dollar amounts per item that the Commonwealth is spending.

It is very interesting in this debate that the Assistant Treasurer stands here and says he is rejecting the amendments. It is very easy to see why. When the amendments were put forward, the government wanted to think about them. The Assistant Treasurer was not here at that point—he was delayed, I understand—but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer was here and said he needed to adjourn the debate to think about the amendments. Having thought about them, he presumably went to the Taxation Office and everywhere in the ministerial wing to ask people to think of every possible excuse they could, including the bizarre excuse we just heard that taxpayers may not like the way the government is spending money and may litigate. I have to tell you that they know in many respects the level of the debt but they do not know their individual components. This is laughable. We here on this side of the House are going to stand up for Australian taxpayers.

To those members opposite—I notice the member for McEwen, my neighbour here—and other members here, it will be very interesting to see how you vote on these amendments because you will be saying to every taxpayer in your electorate that as their representative you went to Canberra and one of your first acts as a new member of parliament was to vote to prevent them from finding out how their taxes were spent. That is going to be one of your first votes before Christmas. A great Christmas present! With the Labor Party, on so many issues, the public comes second best. The Assistant Treasurer’s tone was almost like, ‘We cannot tell them the truth, they cannot handle the truth.’ His contribution today, after 48 hours of preparation, shows that the government at their heart want to conceal information. As the shadow Treasurer said, this is a classic example of the very thing the Independents are arguing for and they should vote for that accordingly.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I genuinely acknowledge the call prior to one of my ill-disciplined colleagues in front. At the beginning of the Assistant Treasurer’s remarks on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010 he proclaimed to be the great defender of workers’ rights in this country in his former position as head of the AWU, now taken over by the man who wants to be Bill Shorten. We know that when the Assistant Treasurer was there he used to talk about how important it was to have strong unfair dismissal protections in our country for working families and for workers. This year, of course, we saw the greatest unfair dismissal this country has ever seen—a walk upstart case of unlawful dismissal—and I would be very happy to brief the member for Griffith on our options in the Federal Court if he wishes to proceed down that line. The Assistant Treasurer, who as the great defender of unfair dismissals that he once was, did not seem to think that it was such a great protection for that Aussie worker on 23 June this year.

The amendments moved by the shadow Treasurer are good amendments. Firstly, they go through with an election commitment. Obviously members on the other side—as Dougie Cameron described them, the ‘lobotomised zombies’—do not understand that when you make an election commitment it is very important that you keep it. When you say that you are not going to introduce a carbon tax, you do not introduce a carbon tax. When you say that you are going to produce an information sheet for the Australian taxpayer on where their money has been spent, you go through with the promise to produce the receipt on where their money has been spent. That is for those on the other side—the zombies, as Dougie Cameron describes them—to learn. Senator Dougie Cameron has always been a good friend to the Assistant Treasurer.

The receipt outlines importantly where the Australian government spends its money. I think taxpayers would be interested in how much of their taxes each year are going to these important services, to these important issues like defence spending, like foreign affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is at the table, has been talking in recent days about foreign aid, and I am sure the Australian public would like to know how much they are individually contributing to each of these projects around the world. I think that is an important element. But they would also like to know how much they are contributing to interest payments each year. We see here, thanks to the shadow Treasurer’s hard work with this, that out of this taxpayer’s $20,000 in tax they would be paying $540 in interest on Labor’s debt. Had they got this receipt under a Liberal government, that number would be zero.

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

They would be earning interest.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, they would be, because we saved money. We left money in the bank for a Labor government to come along. I think it is an acknowledged mistake of the former government to leave that much money for Labor to come along and spend so readily.

This is a good example of what the MPI today was about, which is taking real action on issues which are important to Australians, making these commitments in the election campaign about taking real action and then following through with them after the election. As the shadow Treasurer and the member for Casey so rightly pointed out, we heard much after the election about letting the sunshine in and telling Australians about what happens here and having a transparent approach to the parliament, yet when Labor get back in office, when they get their opportunity again, they do not go through with that and instead they avoid and they use all the excuses in the world.

There were some great excuses in the Assistant Treasurer’s remarks. I thought the classic was that the security of our country would be put at risk if information on what is happening to the Australian people’s money were sent to them. That is a fascinating excuse—and of course security is often used as an excuse when governments cannot win debates. I think what it has more to do with is the security of the Australian Labor Party, because when the Australian taxpayer finds out what this government has done to the economy, how much money it has spent, how much money it has borrowed and how much money it has wasted, the security of the Australian Labor Party will come under great question.

These amendments should be supported. They were a promise made by us during the election campaign. They are a promise made by us now. They should go ahead and I fully support them.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate those coalition members that have spoken previous to me in this debate and in particular applaud the amendments that have been moved by the shadow Treasurer. If there is one compact that we as parliamentarians have with the Australian people it is to be responsible with the use of their money. If there is one critical condition of the contract formed between the members of this place and the people whose tax we take off them it is that we will use their money effectively for the best interests of this nation. With that in mind I am very upset that the Labor Party Assistant Treasurer refuses to undertake these simple amendments, which would go to the very core of ensuring that we as a parliament deal with that central compact of our agreement with the Australian people.

The shadow Treasurer made very clear in the lead-up to the last election that, if elected, we would provide Australian taxpayers with a receipt and that this receipt would detail information about the way in which their money was being spent. We think that is important. We on this side of the House make no apology for the fact that we believe that both history and common sense show that we are better managers of taxpayers’ money than the Australian Labor Party. A short, cursory glance of history will tell us that it is the coalition that pays down $96 billion of debt, that it is the coalition that provides for the future through the Higher Education Endowment Fund, through the Medicare fund, through the Future Fund. It is the coalition that brings down taxes, with over $150 billion in personal income tax cuts. That is our track record. Contrast it with that of the mob opposite, who in the short course of less than three years took Australia from a net savings position to now being mired with a forecast net public debt of around about $95 billion. So I think it is understandable that Australians want to know how their money is being spent.

A tax receipt like this one—the sample that was provided by the shadow Treasurer—does exactly that. It outlines the way in which taxpayers’ money is being spent. This receipt is not a great burden on the ATO. It is not much of an imposition on the ATO because we already know that information is returned to taxpayers by the tax office when they complete their tax return. And it does not matter that it does not deal with other forms of taxes paid to government, such as company tax, because this receipt details information specific to a taxpayer. It details, based on the amount of tax that you pay, how your money is being spent—not what proportion of tax you are paying relative to companies, not how company tax is being rolled out, but how every dollar that you spend is being spent by government.

I think the real reason why the Assistant Treasurer does not want this transparency, the real reason why the Assistant Treasurer runs from providing information to the Australian people, is what this actually would show. Take, for example, this line item, ‘public debt interest’. On this notional tax receipt of $20,000, it accounts for 540 bucks. I suspect that, after another couple of years of this Labor government, it would probably be the single biggest bar on the chart—up there with welfare, up there with what we are contributing in terms of transfers to state and local governments.

Australians have a right to demand of their parliamentarians the effective use of their taxpayer dollars. After all, it does not sit comfortably with coalition members to think that we know how to spend money better than they do. We do not. We actually think they as consumers have a better idea of how to spend a dollar than we do. But there are some areas where of course government must step into the role—national security and defence are of course top line.

The reality is that those opposite have a very different view. Those opposite believe in their beating hearts that they know better how to spend a taxpayer’s dollar than the taxpayer themselves, because what else would explain their insatiable quest and the insatiable appetite that Labor members have for taxing taxpayers and spending their money on their own little pet projects? That is exactly the reason why the coalition will stand up for taxpayers and will say in plain English: let’s provide the taxpayers of Australia with a receipt that explains exactly how their money is being spent so that year on year they can see whether or not the way in which this particular government—or indeed any subsequent government—spends their money is the way that they would like to see their money spent. If they have a problem with it, they might look at alternatives. But I think it is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party does not have the courage to provide this transparency to taxpayers.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was reluctant to speak, but in view of the last couple of contributions a couple of things just have to be corrected for the sake of accuracy. First of all, this information is available. It is available on the internet. It is available when the media report the budget. It is also available in the budget papers. There is a degree of cost and complexity in this coalition thought bubble dreamed up in a frenetic rush in the lead-up to an election. In terms of security and what have you, I do not believe it is a great idea to double the number of bits of information floating around with people’s tax file numbers. Also, I do not see why, if the opposition truly believe in transparency, they have neglected in their amendments all small businesses and businesses who pay tax. Instead, they are just looking at one section of the economy—

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

Next time!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There may well be a next time, because the contributions of the member for Mayo and others put a view about the government and said that somehow the coalition are better economic managers. Let’s be very clear: we have the lowest public debt as a proportion of GDP of any First World nation.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition members’ shouting does not make this any less true. We have some of the best job numbers of any developed nation in the world. We also, in the time of this government, have increased the pensions for the people who most need increases in support. As for taxation, this government’s record on taxation is second to none. We have implemented tax cuts every budget ever since we came in. We have increased thresholds. We have also lowered company tax from 30 to 29 per cent and it is our intention to support people in their retirement by improving superannuation. These amendments only seek to add to the cost and burden of the administration of the Public Service, and indeed the contributions of the coalition still deny the reality of the strong economic record of this government.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side of the chamber believe in smaller government and lower tax. We understand that taxpayer dollars are hard earned. They need to be used carefully, they need to be used responsibly and, most importantly, there needs to be accountability. We in government had a record of cutting taxes. The Rudd, now Gillard, government want to put up taxes. And why do they want to do this? Because they are addicted to spending. There is the alcopops tax, the car tax, the mining tax and the soon-to-be carbon tax. They brought forward the Henry tax review so that they could have a simpler, fairer tax system, and yet of all those 125 taxes listed in there the only suggestion they could come up with was to introduce a brand new tax—the mining tax. They are not making it simpler, not making it fairer. They are certainly making it harder for Australian taxpayers.

We are asking for accountability from this government. We are asking for amendments that we think are highly reasonable. The amendments that we have asked for would put in place a new requirement for the Australian Taxation Office to accompany a notice of assessment for an individual with a receipt showing how their tax has been spent in the financial year for which that assessment applies. The dollar amount spent on the key categories of government expenditure would be based on a nominal proportion of budget expenditure constituted by each function. The amendments also put in place a new requirement for the Australian Taxation Office to accompany a notice of assessment for an individual with a receipt showing the level of Australian government net debt.

Why is it that this government thinks that this is such a radical suggestion? Why is it, in this new paradigm of letting the sunshine in, that they are not prepared to let there be proper accountability? The very fact that they are prepared to reject these amendments exposes them today. It exposes a toxic culture of secrecy in this government. Let’s not forget that this toxic culture of secrecy is not a one-off. It is not simply about not providing a proper tax receipt to Australian taxpayers; it is a culture of secrecy that we have seen in things like the Building the Education Revolution program. We asked for a proper judicial inquiry. They rejected this. Instead, they picked a reviewer of their own to provide a review into their own project. It is a project that has wasted billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. We only need to look to the pink batts scheme. Again, we asked for a proper judicial inquiry and instead they rejected this and closed down the scheme with not so much as an explanation to all of those small businesses out there that had been put in a difficult situation by this current government.

Finally, we have the NBN. Only this week there have been warnings from the OECD that it would be wrong to pick winners, it would be wrong to legislate to reduce competition, it would be wrong to waste taxpayer dollars and that instead we should be considering value for money. But again they are not prepared to have a cost-benefit analysis done, because they are not prepared to be an accountable government. The reason they are not prepared to be accountable, of course, is that they are an arrogant government. They do not believe that they need to be accountable to the Australian people, and it does not matter how many times Julia Gillard says that she is a reformer, that she is an economic conservative. It does not matter how many times she says it. When we were in government and we brought forward real economic reforms, she opposed them.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every single time.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She opposed them every single time, every single reform. So it is no surprise that again the Julia Gillard government is opposing this reform, a reform that would make it clear to the Australian taxpayers exactly how their money is to be spent, exactly what the debt is that this government is getting us into and the impost that it will have on their family, on their small business and on their children for generations to come.

Julia Gillard and this government are wreckers of the Australian economy and they want to keep it a secret for as long as they can. It might work for New South Wales Labor but it does not work here. We will hold this government to account. We will continue to push for proper reforms and we will continue to push for accountability. We think that if they are for real they will not be lobotomised zombies; they will actually support this reform. They are lost in the wilderness and they only have the Greens for guides. They should instead stand up and be accountable to the Australian people, accountable to the taxpayers, and support our reform. (Time expired)

17:29:44

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the minister.

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

Another afterthought! What have you thought of now?

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

Are you defending yourself again? Who will defend you?

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

The member for North Sydney might want to hang around for his division. I haven’t had to do much recently. It would be quite entertaining. The minister has the call.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the contributions of the member for Casey, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Mayo and the member for Higgins—people whom I think could fairly be described as the best and brightest of the coalition, although unfortunately not receiving the promotion that they should; no doubt they are long overdue and no doubt the member for North Sydney will get his promotion in the end—and in listening to their contributions, whilst they were perhaps what you would call vituperative and prejudiced, one thing I noticed as I was reading amendment (2) was that it says one of the items that should be included in the taxation receipt—

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

Oh, is that the first time you’ve read it?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not take that long to read. One of the items on the taxation receipt is the level of Australian net debt for the end of the financial year. I understand that number comes out in August of the year of the budget, so you send out the tax receipt but the net debt figure comes out in August. With regard to that—

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

It can’t keep pace with your spending—oh my God!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for North Sydney could just show a little patience rather than precociousness. The proposition is that every taxpayer, under this coalition thought bubble dreamed up in the frenetic rush leading up to an election, would receive this information. The problem with the coalition proposition, I realise, is that the net debt figure comes out in August. The shadow Treasurer may not be aware that quite a lot of people actually process their tax before the time of that figure, and one of the consequences of the coalition’s amendment would be that millions of Australians might have their tax returns delayed to fit in with this.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the member for North Sydney and the best and brightest of the coalition—and, no favouritism, I should have included the member for Kooyong in that too; I apologise for that—I think that one of the consequences of this amendment would be that millions of Australians would not get their tax returns. I can understand that the coalition may not be in touch with ordinary Australians and understand how important a tax return is to Australians, but delaying it for some political thought bubble which the opposition still, in some sort of quixotic crusade, wants to persist with is unfair on millions of Australians.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The election we just went to was one fought on commitment. You had the coalition commitment to cut $50 billion from the budget to bring $50 billion of savings to this House. Commitments are easy; anyone can make them. The difference between Labor and us is on the commitment side. Commitments are easy to make; it is the keeping of the commitment that is the hard part. You can write commitments anywhere: ‘“There will be no carbon price under any government I lead”—there you go!’ Then it is gone. You do not have to keep it. It is the keeping of the commitment that sets you aside as a truly great government.

The Prime Minister accuses us of three-word slogans. Well, in relation to this bill I would like to try this one on for size when it comes to taxation: ‘Fairer, lower, simpler’. There is a three-word slogan you can hang your hat on. Then there is responsibility to the electorate. During the campaign we spoke to our constituents. We spoke to the PAYE people who are struggling with real cost-of-living pressures—not just the housing mortgage, not just the rising electricity prices, but the cost of fruit and vegetables, milk, bread, butter, school fees. The whole thing is just so hard for the people of Australia at the moment.

Small business is crumbling under the weight of bureaucracy being loaded on by this government. Every small business man to whom I spoke said that the problem was that they were prepared to grow their businesses but they could not afford the compliance costs under this government’s stack of legislation to make it harder for them to grow their business and therefore grow prosperity.

As I said in my maiden speech, it is not about the amount of tax being paid, which is about right; it is about the way it is collected and the way it is displayed. We all pay tax, and as far as the general public are concerned it just disappears—it comes in and they do not have any ownership over where it goes. Our amendment will give the general public, the PAYE taxpayer, ownership of where their tax dollar is going. Imagine the joy, Deputy Speaker, when you open your statement and it says that your tax dollar has helped improve roads, has provided life-saving operations, has helped with foreign aid and defence.

The government’s problem may be that they simply do not know where the money has gone—or could it be that they do know and they do not want the statement to come out saying: your money has gone on pink batts; your money has gone on the foreign minister’s airfares; your money has gone to state government blackholes. Maybe it would say, ‘The $20,000 tax that you paid has gone into four square metres of a BER project’—a project that, if that bloke had paid the $20,000 to a carpenter or builder, would have come in at about $1,500 per square metre.

Or interest on government debt. We have just taken your whole $20,000 and paid it off net government debt. They do not pay it off government debt. Who am I kidding? Or cost blow-outs or illegal immigrant detention centres in your suburb. The people of Australia deserve to know and should have access to this information. Imagine the joy of knowing that your tax dollars have helped put in a PET scanner in Townsville and the amount of money that has saved. A PET scanner in Townsville under our program would have cost $2.5 million; under the government’s program it would cost over nine. Under the government’s program, it would take another two years to put in; under our program, it would take less than six months. The way the invoice would come out, there would be ownership there and it is simple, it is fair, it is clear and it is lower. It should be done.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The level of Australian government debt is high and spiralling out of control. Taxation levels are high and getting higher under the Gillard government, which is addicted to spending. Prior to the 21 August election, this government promised there would be no carbon tax. Now the Prime Minister labours about why a carbon tax is not only a certainty but needed. Why is it needed? Why is a carbon tax, which will push business and household electricity prices through the roof, needed? We now hear horror stories of age pensioners who are not getting out of bed in the morning during winter, not because they are old but because they cannot afford to turn the heater on to stay warm. The warmest place for them is to stay in bed. Is this the Australia we want for our future? Is this the Australia we want our children to inherit? I think not.

Our tax dollars are being wasted on such things as the Building the Education Revolution school halls rip-off and the Home Insulation Program—reasonable initiatives in theory but hopelessly carried out, like everything else this government touches. Why not a proper cost-benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network? It is going to cost taxpayers of this nation $43 billion of their hard-earned money. Since the government was elected—or was put there—it has spent $600,000 on an audit into defence spending. They have barely looked under a mouse pad, according to the shadow minister for defence. This spend-happy government is slugging average families—families already hurting, already struggling—more and more each and every day. Families are the backbone of this nation but they are having their backs broken by the spineless Gillard government, which so often says something and does the complete opposite.

Let us see the government be more transparent and tell the taxpayers of this nation where their hard-earned taxes are really being spent. It is not a paper chase; it is called transparency, being accountable, upfront, honest. Let us tell taxpayers where their taxes are being spent and how much tax they are paying proportionately within the federal budget. Despite inheriting a $20 billion surplus in 2007, the surplus left by the Howard government, naught dollars net debt and $60 billion in the Future Fund, Labor is delivering $78.5 million in net debt or $3,500 per person and has a budget deficit of $40.8 million, the biggest since World War II. Labor is borrowing $100 million a day. How can we as a nation continue with this debt while slugging our taxpayers in this way? We cannot, must not and, hopefully, will not. Many taxpayers get a tax return. They are not getting much return from those opposite. Let us hope that those opposite are not returned after the next election.

The coalition allocated $5.8 billion in the 2007 Water Act. Of that money, only $300 million of the $700 million which should have been spent to date has been rolled out. Not one cent has been spent in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the food bowl of the nation. The hard-working irrigation farmers who sustain and feed this nation would like to know where their taxes are being spent because they are not being spent in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. A tax receipt for Australian taxpayers would tell the family farmers exactly where their money is going. I urge all to support the amendments put forward by the shadow Treasurer. If those opposite do not want to support these amendments, what are they trying to hide?

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to endorse wholeheartedly these amendments. This is about accountability—and this side of the House is the side for accountability. Over there, the government are very good at claiming that they build things, with big signs out the front. They are very good at that but when it comes down to accountability and overseeing where the money has gone, explaining the break-up to the Australian people—a person’s $20,000 of personal tax or $40,000—the government are not quite so good about saying that some of it went to debt, and a lot of it is going to debt these days, or to the blow-outs on border control. They are happy to talk about photo opportunities at schools but not so happy about explaining how the debt comes into it.

The reality is that Australians do not like paying tax—I think we can be certain of that. They will be very unhappy to see where a lot of their taxes have gone. That is the reason the government have such a big problem with this. They are very unhappy about having to explain to the Australian people what this government has been about in the past three years—outrageous and reckless spending and huge taxation. That is what it is really all about. I do not need to look all the time over at that side because, as we get to the division on this matter, we are also going to be looking at this side, where the Independents sit. They are the ones who, after the last election, allegedly championed a reform with the government about accountability and transparency. So we will see what side the Independents are on. Do they care about accountability?

We already know that the government stands against accountability. It stands against the Australian people knowing where every tax dollar will go. It is not as though we are trying to break it down to the minutia against all programs and departments. I think the Australian people would be very interested in seeing how much the failures in border protection are costing them and how much the national debt is costing them as well.

The more things change here the more they stay the same. We had a lot of discussion about how this was going to be a brand new parliament, a new paradigm and how the sun would shine in. The sun is not shining in very far today and it is not reaching the government’s side of the chamber by any means. If we look at the debt levels that have been introduced by this government and compare those with the times when this country actually had a surplus, delivered by this team on this side of the House, there is a big difference. If we produce in the future a breakdown of where everyone’s taxes go, or if we applied what we are proposing now to what we had when this country had a surplus, up against debt that would be a zero. What a big difference it is now.

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

It would be a credit.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A credit. That is why Peter Costello was able to deliver all those tax refunds. That is where it all came out. The Australian people saw the realities of tax refunds reducing personal tax, and that is because of that funny word called the ‘surplus’. It is something that this government has not yet found. It has found a lot of ways to spend and a lot of ways to tax, but it has not got to that surplus part.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thirty seconds to go, Luke.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would say, Minister, before I finish is that I was expecting you to stand up before I spoke but then I realised that your office has done such a poor job of preparing you today that you have had only a few notes to write down along the way. Maybe your notes next time are coming soon. They will be far less credible. If that is the result of all you have had in 48 hours, there is nothing left to come from you, Minister. (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can learn a lot about a politician by asking who their political heroes are. If you ask the members opposite, they will point to two men: Paul Keating, who gave us the recession we had to have, and Gough Whitlam, who drove this country near to bankruptcy and had to borrow money from Saddam Hussein to save this country. Who do we on this side of politics look to as our political heroes? We look to Margaret Thatcher, and what did Margaret Thatcher say? ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’ We look to Ronald Reagan. What did Ronald Reagan say about the socialist approach to the economy? ‘If something moves they regulate it. If it keeps moving they tax it. And if it stops moving they subsidise it.’ Who else do we look to on this side of politics as our political heroes? John Howard and Peter Costello. What did they do? They paid back $96 billion of Labor debt. What did they do? They overcame Beazley’s $10 billion black hole. What did they do? They have produced the lowest inflation and unemployment rates in decades. What did they do? They had the vision to create a $50 billion Future Fund and a $5 billion-plus Higher Education Endowment Fund.

The best way you can help somebody is to help them get a job, and the best way you can help a person get a job is by creating a strong economy—because at the end of the day governments have great responsibilities. We have heard about defence, we have heard about the environment and we have heard about health, but if you do not run the economy well you will not be able to support the Australian people. That is why I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010.

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

I am pleased the member has finally got to the amendments before the House. I was beginning to think that we needed to get back there.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The insertion of a new schedule 8 will provide tax receipts to individual taxpayers. It will require the ATO to accompany a notice of an assessment for an individual with a receipt showing how that tax was paid for a particular financial year and how that money was spent on the key categories of government expenditure. Importantly, it will also show the level of Australian government net debt. Why do those members opposite not support these amendments? The reason is that they do not want to let the Australian people in on the big secret that we are borrowing $100 million a day. They do not believe that it is Australian taxpayers who know how best to spend their money and they do not want to explain to the Australian people why a desperate Rudd government had to resort to a mining tax. They do not want to let the Australian people know why a desperate Gillard government wants to run to a carbon tax. They do not want to explain to the Australian people why they want to cut the health insurance rebate and they do not want to explain to the Australian people why they are not prepared to support independent and Catholic schools.

This should be no surprise because, if you look at this government’s record, remember that the member for Griffith, who has departed this chamber, went to the 2007 election promising to be a fiscal conservative but never stuck to his word. Instead, he wasted billions of dollars on the tragic pink batts program, $43 billion which the government plans to spend on the NBN, the catastrophic Green Loans scheme—and we all know about the BER scheme and the huge wastage that has taken place there. When you look at the government’s economic record and when you look at its economic team—the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer—they do not have any small business experience and they do not have the economic record to stand on. (Time expired)

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

We have heard very good contributions to the debate from the member for Mayo, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Higgins—in the great tradition of the former member for Higgins—the member for Riverina, the member for Cowan, the member for Kooyong and the member for Casey, who put forward an erudite argument in favour of—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Shorten interjecting

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

Does he? I am paying too great a tribute. You should listen to what I say, Bill, you really should. Just open your ears, mate. All of them made a significant contribution and I was waiting for the plethora of Labor members to come into this place and back the Assistant Treasurer. I want to give you a little tip, old fella: if you want to get the numbers against Julia, you will have to do better than that. You will have to get a few others in here. There was not one member of the government backbench prepared to support the Assistant Treasurer in this debate. Even in my old days as a minister, if we were in committee, I would roll out some backbenchers. Even if I had to explain to them in detail what the debate was about, they would still come in to defend me and the government. But here we have the Assistant Treasurer standing on his lonesome out in the middle of the Simpson Desert. He will probably run into Burke and Wills, because they are lost as well.

In his numerous defences of the indefensible position of the government, the Assistant Treasurer has cited every single conceivable reason why this amendment should be opposed on the basis of national security—the fear that al-Qaeda is going to take away all that information about Australian taxpayers’ contributions each year. He has cited the post office, he has cited the tax office and he has cited the Treasury. Soon we will have the Altona chapter of the Girl Guides opposing the provision of transparent information to Australian taxpayers. Or perhaps he will cite someone of a more left wing nature: the people’s liberation front of Liberia—they oppose Australians getting information about where their tax is going. This is exactly what they cling to. The people’s liberation front of Liberia, being stacked out in the Assistant Treasurer’s branch, are already committed to the Labor Party, as are the Girl Guides of Altona, who assisted the Prime Minister with her preselection after she could not win preselection against old Lindsay Tanner.

Speaking of the old finance minister, where is he? Where is the economic credibility of the Labor Party? It retired after one term. No wonder! The poor old fellow, he threw his arms in the air and said: ‘What happened? I thought we were fiscal conservatives. I believed Kevin. I believed those ads that we are fiscal conservatives in the Labor Party.’ You know what? He was a man of honour. You would share this view, Deputy Speaker—the former member for Melbourne was a man of honour; he was a man of integrity. He cringed at the spendathon of the Labor Party. Sadly there is not one person left within the fibre and ranks of the parliamentary Labor Party that believes in surpluses, let alone ever delivers a surplus.

Old Swannie there, every year he comes out and says: ‘We are going to deliver a surplus’—with feigned indignation and a reach for the water—‘we will deliver a surplus one day. Once upon a time, we will deliver a surplus.’ He says it emphatically so everyone believes him, but of course Labor never has delivered a surplus and, sadly, it never will deliver a surplus. That is why they do not want taxpayers to know where their money is going. That is why they do not want transparency.

In the deal with the Independents after the recent election, there they were—the Labor Party and the Independents were going to blow the lid off Canberra so that everyone could see the entrails of the workings of government. They were going to have a transparent government, an honest government. ‘Let the sunshine in. Turn off the lights, we will not need them any more because—forget Freedom of Information which never worked at any rate—we are going to release all the documents. We are going to tell everyone in Australia exactly where their money is going, how it is spent and how the wheels turn in government.’ If the wheels ever do turn in government.

We will keep introducing this amendment. Every time there is a tax bill, we will make this the signature of the Labor Party’s failure, its failure to deliver transparency to Australian taxpayers. We believe in honesty. We believe in transparency. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening very carefully to the member for North Sydney’s contribution. Whilst he has failed to convince me—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in a complete shock and upset outcome—I did want to clarify something, as I offered to do before, in the interests of putting some clarity in this debate, putting some fact as opposed to thunder into this debate. In the proposed coalition amendment, under item 3 in the table the coalition proposed an item, among others, that would have to be included in this tax receipt. Item 3 refers to the level of Australian government net debt at the end of the financial year and at the end of the previous financial year. So the coalition are proposing that this information is a must have in this must-have receipt. I did say in an earlier contribution that this number was not available until August. I was therefore making the point that, if in a rush of blood to the head we voted for this coalition excitement, tax returns lodged on 1 July—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Mayo is intimately aware that the tax office requires that all forms have to be processed within 30 days of lodgement.

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

They do not comply. You know they do not comply. It did not happen last year.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they have to be processed. As much as the member for North Sydney is interrupting me out of embarrassment for the point he knows is inexorably coming at the coalition’s straw man argument like a barrelling B-double, I said in my earlier contribution that the net debt number would be finalised in August. What this would mean is that people who lodge their tax return on 1 July would have to wait beyond 30 July until whenever the figure is available in August.

I am vaguely grateful for the extensive, extemporaneous and somewhat cliched contributions from some of the members of the opposition—not the ones I mentioned before by name—because what I have discovered is that the Australian government net debt is not published as part of the final budget outcome; it is generally published before the end of September. For example, if we were to lose our senses and in some sort of random act of legislative madness all vote for this Liberal amendment—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, I will not use the word ‘madness’ but instead, say, ‘legislative red tape’. If we did vote for this amendment the number required for the tax receipt for the 2010-11 income year will not be available until three months after the processing of returns commences on 1 July. So if we were to vote for this amendment what we would be doing is delaying people’s tax returns for up to two months because many Australians file their tax returns straightaway. Indeed, under the Liberal amendment—or the coalition amendment, because let us not forget the National Party, the country cousins of the Liberal Party—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina agrees that they are the country cousins of the Liberals. Under this amendment we would be incurring interest payments on the Taxation Office or we would be delaying payments. When you have a political thought bubble it is always important to remember to look at the law of unintended consequences and to work through the implications. There is one reason above all else you should not vote for this amendment: why would you want to cost millions of taxpayers and delay their returns?

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

That is the most laughable suggestion about this amendment that I have heard—that somehow sending people a receipt is going to hold up their tax returns or any receipt they are going to receive from the Taxation Office. You guys are seriously a joke. The Taxation Office—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Shorten interjecting

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

Do not start on the Taxation Office, sunshine. The Taxation Office last year changed its computer programs and thousands of Australians were waiting not 30 days but six months to get their tax returns. So do not come to us with the sanctimonious rubbish of a new Assistant Treasurer, based on political advice from a half-empty officials’ box, and tell us about the performance of the Taxation Office. Fair dinkum, mate—you have got more front than Myer. I thought it was just the Prime Minister who had that sort of front. I would say to you that this is about transparency. If you are so worried about that particular provision then why is net debt published in the budget?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it is not finalised.

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

Because it keeps going up!

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

That is right. The problem is that net debt keeps growing and they cannot keep up. They are running on the spot and they cannot keep up with net debt. The number keeps changing. It keeps turning over like an old pokie in an RSL. That is their problem. That is what they are worried about—the number might not keep up with what it actually is.

The budget papers actually publish net debt figures. You know what is amazing? The budget papers come out before 30 June. He is worried about the receipt going out to people after 30 June, but the budget numbers, with a net debt estimate, come out before 30 June. You have been set up, Bill. You have got to watch yourself, mate. People are setting you up everywhere. Kevin was setting you up by sitting in here while you were speaking. I am just trying to help you.

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

The member for North Sydney will refer to members by their appropriate titles.

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

Okay, the member for Griffith was setting you up. This is the political learning curve for you. That is what it is. So when you get advice that you cannot publish net debt in these figures, I would say to you, ‘You can.’ You publish numbers all the time. The MYEFO that comes out has new updated net debt figures. Even the PEFO before an election comes out with a net debt figure. It is amazing how the government can pull out a net debt figure when it suits it, but when it has to actually write to individual taxpayers and tell them what the net debt figure is it is all too hard.

This just illustrates the fact that this is a government that does not want to be transparent. I say emphatically again that we will move this amendment every single time a tax bill comes on until the Australian people find out exactly where their tax is going—something the Labor Party does not want to tell them.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Hockey’s) be agreed to.