Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. During question time yesterday the Prime Minister said:

… increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever.

However, today the Prime Minister has answered a question indicating that he will increase the capital gains tax on millions of superannuation accounts. Prime Minister, which of these answers is false, and will the Prime Minister acknowledged that he misled the parliament?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the question offends the standing orders in a number of ways. It contains an assertion about—

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members on my left will cease interjecting. Members on both sides, I have made clear a number of times: if you expect me to make a ruling, I need to be able to hear what is being said. The member for Isaacs has already been warned.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first part of the question has been asked over and over again today and has been fully answered. The second part of the question was an assertion about an answer the Prime Minister gave today which is not true. It is therefore simply an assertion and offends the standing orders. The third part, in terms of misleading the House, is something that can only be moved by a substantive motion and simply cannot be asserted across the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition's question offends the standing orders in a least three ways.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first part of the question goes to a fundamental issue for every member of parliament in this House about whether someone has misled the parliament. There is nothing more serious within the parliament than that. On the second issue, if the assertion from the Leader of the House is correct and that claim is wrong, then the Prime Minister clearly must have misled. The third part of the claim goes to whether or not the Prime Minister misled the House because the first two are different versions of events. The first two are contradictory claims; therefore, we are left with no choice but to ask whether or not there has been a mislead. We have not asked whether it was deliberate.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to rule on this quickly and members cannot interject while I do so. Whilst I have heard both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, Speaker Andrew addressed points of order like this, and it is the approach I think is best to take in free-flowing debate: when an assertion is made the chair cannot be there to judge the factual accuracy of assertions, and in preventing the question it prevents the minister, in this case the Prime Minister, from refuting it if they wish. With respect to the Leader of the House's point about misleading the parliament, questions need to be very careful in that regard. Without hearing the question again and delaying the House, I am just going to ask the Prime Minister to ignore that part of the question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have addressed this several times, but I will do so in more length, because I think what the opposition is doing here demeans this House and it demonstrates a desperation that really insults the intelligence of the Australian people. For the benefit of Australians who are watching this, let us consider this: at 20 past two yesterday I answered a question from the member for Hindmarsh and I spoke about the Labor Party's proposal to increase capital gains tax on personal income. I said that on a top marginal rate it would effectively go to 37 per cent, which is true. I said that would be higher than the United States, higher than the UK and much higher than the—

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert has been warned, and he should not blame the member for Braddon! As I made clear in the last ruling—I am perhaps unfairly trying to anticipate the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order—I decided to allow the question because I think there should be openness and free-flowing debate. Where a question contains a number of statements—and there were quite a number of them; more than three, I think—it is almost impossible for the Prime Minister on that topic to not be relevant. If I allow broad questions, then I am going to allow broad answers.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I respect what you have said, but in terms of the answer yesterday, the Prime Minister is quoting every part of that answer except the part that was in the question which was the mislead.

Mrs Griggs interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Solomon will cease interjecting. Just before I call the Prime Minister, I have made very clear he is on the policy topic of tax. As I said, it was a broad question. Other speakers could have been more restrictive. But if you want me to be not restrictive on questions; I am not going to be as restrictive on answers.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the answer I gave to the member for Hindmarsh discussed the very negative consequences of Labor's proposal to increase capital gains tax so dramatically for individuals. I noted that, for example, on an asset that grew at six per cent over five or six years, it would amount to 20 per cent tax on the real gain. That was my answer. Then at 2:23, the member for McMahon rose and said, 'My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his previous answer', all of which was devoted to talking about personal income tax and Labor's proposal to change the CGT discount. He asked me whether I ruled out announcing any changes to capital gains tax—referring to the previous answer—to which I said, 'I can say to the honourable member that increasing the capital gains tax is no part of our thinking.' I then went on to talk about negative gearing and the impact on housing and so forth from the proposed changes they made to capital gains tax.

It is perfectly clear that I was talking about Labor's proposal to increase capital gains tax on individuals and it was perfectly obvious that that was what the member for McMahon was talking about. But then those opposite want to waste the time of the House by pretending that my remarks addressed a topic that went utterly undiscussed in the whole debate yesterday.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the depth of childlessness and desperation to which they have sunk. I say to those honourable members: when you are in a tax hole, stop digging.