House debates
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Motions
Turnbull Government
2:48 pm
Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)when the Prime Minister deposed the Member for Warringah, he promised new economic leadership for Australia—
Ewen JonesBill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
(b)The Prime Minister promised a significant tax reform agenda. The Turnbull government—
Government members interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Could the Leader of the Opposition just resume his seat for one second. I need to hear the motion. The member for Herbert will leave under 94(a). I asked him to cease interjecting.
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
I am trying to hear the motion. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his motion again.
Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)when the Prime Minister deposed the Member for Waringah, he promised new economic leadership for Australia;
(b)the Prime Minister promised a significant tax reform agenda; and
(c)the Turnbull Government has said the entire reason for its tax reform agenda was to deliver personal income tax cuts for Australians; and
(2)notes that in the chaotic six months since the Prime Minister deposed the Member for Warringah, the Turnbull Government has:
(a)floated and then shelved plans for an increased GST;
(b)floated and then shelved plans for dealing with what the Government described as the excesses in negative gearing;
(c)backflipped on superannuation tax concessions;
(d)attacked Labor’s responsible plan for tobacco excise but now plans to adopt some or all of it; and
(e)floated and then shelved personal income tax cuts for Australians;
(3)notes that the only policies the Government has kept on the table are extreme cuts, including from the 2014 Budget, including plans for $100,000 university degrees, cuts to family payments, cuts to pensions, cuts to Medicare, and cuts to schools and hospitals; and
(4)condemns the Government and the Prime Minister for failing to meet their own tests, including failing to:
(a)provide new economic leadership;
(b)respect the intelligence of the Australian people;
(c)deliver any tax reform; and
(d)deliver a stable and competent Government but instead leading a Government wracked by chaos and dysfunction.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)when the Prime Minister deposed the Member for Waringah, he promised new economic leadership for Australia;
(b)the Prime Minister promised a significant tax reform agenda; and
(c)the Turnbull Government has said the entire reason for its tax reform agenda was to deliver personal income tax cuts for Australians; and
(2)notes that in the chaotic six months since the Prime Minister deposed the Member for Warringah, the Turnbull Government has:
(a)floated and then shelved plans for an increased GST;
(b)floated and then shelved plans for dealing with what the Government described as the excesses in negative gearing;
(c)backflipped on superannuation tax concessions;
(d)attacked Labor’s responsible plan for tobacco excise but now plans to adopt some or all of it; and
(e)floated and then shelved personal income tax cuts for Australians;
(3)notes that the only policies the Government has kept on the table are extreme cuts, including from the 2014 Budget, including plans for $100,000 university degrees, cuts to family payments, cuts to pensions, cuts to Medicare, and cuts to schools and hospitals; and
(4)condemns the Government and the Prime Minister for failing to meet their own tests, including failing to:
(a)provide new economic leadership;
(b)respect the intelligence of the Australian people;
(c)deliver any tax reform; and
(d)deliver a stable and competent Government but instead leading a Government wracked by chaos and dysfunction.
The Prime Minister has given up governing. The Prime Minister and his new economic leadership are simply going down the drain.
We can date the birth of new economic leadership under the Turnbull government: 14 September 2015. Six months later, we can date the death of new economic leadership: 16 March 2016. This government has given up governing. The reason this resolution should be discussed in the parliament is Australians are aghast that after six months of the Turnbull promise nothing has materialised. I believe that many Australians had a hope that politics could be better after the change from Mr Abbott to Mr Turnbull. We knew that the job might be harder over on this side but we knew there was a chance to debate ideas, including tax reform. Six months later 'massive disappointment' is the overwhelming emotion of many Australians about the Turnbull government.
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have failed the tests they set themselves. It was not Labor that set the test of new economic leadership. It was Mr Turnbull. He justified rolling the member for Warringah on the basis of new economic leadership. In that time, we have seen the constant retreat backwards from tax reform. There was going to be a white paper on taxation. The Prime Minister said in question time today: 'I'll tell you what is going on, people of Australia, in the due process and it will be at the budget.' But that is not, actually, what they have said before today.
Mr Turnbull, over here, thought it was easy being Prime Minister—'Roll Mr Abbott' and his inevitable destiny awaited Australia. The problem is, in the meantime, he promised a white paper on taxation. He then promised a green paper on taxation. Then we were going to have the budget. That has disappeared. Then what he promised was a tax statement. He promised a tax statement and then a budget. Then he decided, yesterday—in one of those Turnbullian sorts of excesses where I am not sure that his Treasurer was notified, but that is business as usual in the Turnbull government—'We'll skip the tax statement. I'll tell you at budget.'
Then we had Senator Fifield out there today—because it is hard to keep up with the lines of the day when they are the lines of the hour—saying, 'No, we might have a tax statement.' Today, again, we asked the Prime Minister, in a very straightforward fashion—it was a most polite inquiry for information—'What is your tax policy?' Yet again, what we have seen is the defining response of politics, in this country, in 2016. All the government could do, all the Prime Minister could do, was talk about us, because the opposition has put forward well costed, well funded responsible plans for the future. What we have seen this government do—and why we must, most certainly, talk about this motion—is move away from dealing not only with tax reform but also with housing affordability. This Prime Minister lets himself down.
He is not really Mr Abbott and I am not sure his heart is always in some of the scare campaigns of the more conservative elements of his party. I am not sure, in fact, the Prime Minister's heart is in a lot of what he pretends to be his policy now. But that is a resolution for another day. What he will not do is deal with housing affordability. He said that our plan on negative gearing—which is not retrospective, which is aimed at encouraging new housing, which is aimed at helping first home owners into the housing market—our policy of providing government support for new housing and non-existing housing is 'disastrous'. You can just hear him—the fingers running across the grand piano—saying, 'This is terrible.'
The point he has neglected to tell the Australian people is that Liberal and Labor state and territory governments have already scrapped first-home-owner-buyer schemes for existing houses and they use them, now, for new housing. If Mr Turnbull was right, why did he not say anything in the last five years when state and territory governments had been scrapping schemes and moving the priority to new housing? I understand some of the problem Mr Turnbull has. He cannot be captain-coach and play all 18 positions on a football field, can he? He has to let 'Guess who?' out-of-the-box occasionally. I am talking about poor old Treasurer Morrison.
We talk about the Prime Minister shrinking into his job. You should see the Treasurer. You need a microscope to find that fellow these days. The difficulty, I feel, for Mr Morrison in all of this is he said he has a passion—such a strong word; it is Morrisonian in context—for income tax cuts. The problem is, he has had his passion cooled. This poor old Treasurer must hate going to cabinet these days. Has this Treasurer won a single economic argument with Barnaby Joyce since he got there? I understand it must be very embarrassing to lose arguments to Barnaby Joyce. Not that we would know!
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their correct titles.
Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What we have also seen, with this loss of this new economic leadership, is the Treasurer—he was going to look at the GST. It is just shelved. It is not dead, buried and cremated, but it is certainly shelved for the time being. I am just wondering, with this Treasurer, if it is possible for Mr Turnbull to sub in a new Treasurer. Goodness knows, Mr Porter and others would be willing to do the job for Mr Morrison. What I am curious about is: has the Treasurer been down to see the foreign minister to see if the Washington post is available? No, that is gone. Maybe something more low-profile, like New Zealand. He could talk to his old mate McClay and get some more anecdotes for the next Press Club speech.
The truth of the matter is, in 2016, politics is changing, but it is not changing in the way that Mr Turnbull promised. He is running a negative approach and a small-target approach. Mr Turnbull—the insurgent radical reformer of courage, who many Australians liked before he became leader—that personality has gone and his real persona has emerged as Prime Minister of Australia. He is nothing but a paid advocate of the Liberal Party co-joined with the erratic leadership of the National Party, and Australia is the worse. The reason we are not getting tax reform in this country is Mr Turnbull believes in nothing other than himself. That is a very confident set of beliefs, though, I understand.
Everything he said he believed in before he became Prime Minister—tax reform, climate change, the CSIRO and even marriage quality—has been dropped. The only thing agile about this Prime Minister is—not his tax reforms—his convictions. This man puts the vane into weathervane. He is the ultimate hollowman of Australian politics.
Let me say this to the Prime Minister on behalf of all Australians: there is nothing honest about not being up-front with your taxation plans for Australia. You have had six months to deliver an outline of taxation reform in this country and all you have done is walk away from the excesses of negative gearing, which you acknowledge exist. All you have done is reverse the position on superannuation tax concessions. But you are still persisting— having boxed yourself in by perhaps talking too much and doing too little—with the 2014 budget.
I can promise you this, just like we promised Mr Abbott with the 2014 budget: we will fight your cuts to hospitals; we will find your cuts to schools. There is nothing exciting about making cancer patients and people with chronic disease pay more to go and get their pathology and diagnostic imaging tests. This government needs to stand up and start fighting for the Australian economy and start fighting for Australian jobs. We see nothing exciting about shipping 3,000 shipbuilding jobs to Spanish ports, not Australian shipfields.
This motion should be debated because taxation reform needs an honest debate and it needs to be up-front with the Australian people, just like Labor.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded?
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
3:01 pm
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That stirring address ended with a mention of ships, which of course reminds us that, during the six years of the Labor government, not one naval vessel was commissioned, not one ship. We have had to pick up that six years of neglect.
The honourable member talks about the economy and he complains about the economy. Our economy is growing, as at the last quarter, at a three per cent real rate. That is higher than any of the G7 economies. It is considerably in excess of the OECD average. It is doing well in all of the circumstances, where there are real global economic headwinds. Of course, we are transitioning from a mining-construction boom led economy to one with sources of growth and job creation that are more diverse. We are transitioning much better than other similarly resource dominated economies, which of course would be Canada and Brazil.
The honourable member reminds me that I have been Prime Minister for six months. He has cast his judgement, he says, on behalf the Australian people on my prime ministership. Well, I can note that consumer confidence has risen 11 per cent since mid-September, and confidence in the economic outlook has increased, with economic conditions next year estimated to be 20 per cent higher and economic conditions in the next five years 10 per cent higher than mid-September. That may be a more reliable indication of what Australian consumers and investors are thinking.
The government has undertaken, in the six months since I became Prime Minister, one substantial policy commitment after another. First, we committed to an innovation and science agenda, which will bring more Australian ideas to market. It will connect our best research and developers with the business and industry contacts that they need to commercialise their investment. It will ensure that start-ups, who struggle to get access to capital—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I remind the member for Jagajaga that she has been warned.
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
will be able to do so, by providing real tax incentives—and there is a very marked contrast to the approach of the Labor Party, which is of course increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent. The absolutely directly calculated inevitable consequence of that will reduce investment. Nothing is more certain. If you want people to do less of something, increase the tax. That is why the Labor Party and others advocate an increase in tax on tobacco, because they want people to smoke less. If you increase the tax on investment, you will have less investment—that is precisely what they have sought to do.
We brought out the defence white paper, the first fully costed white paper since 2000. It increases defence funding by $30 billion over the next 10 years. It delivers on our election commitment to return defence spending to two per cent of GDP. What is most important about the defence white paper is that it is a statement about investment and it is a statement about innovation, and it is determined to ensure that, so far as possible, every dollar we spend on Australia's defence capabilities is invested here in Australian technology, in Australian industries, creating Australian jobs. That is our focus. We have gone to the length of establishing a defence industry collaboration centre, headquartered in Adelaide, as honourable members are aware, whose job it is to make sure that we have better connections and engagement, particularly with small businesses, which often struggle to get connected, to get engaged with the giant of the Australian defence forces.
Against the Labor Party's opposition, we secured passage of the legislation, finally—Labor crumbled at the last minute—to ensure that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement could become operative. That is an enormous achievement, and it was opposed, as we know, root and branch by the Labor Party and the union movement.
For many years, perhaps not everyone—a few vested interests have opposed it—but the vast majority of people understanding the industry have said that the media ownership laws were way out of date, that they predated the internet, that they needed reform. Previous Labor governments—previous coalition governments, to be fair—have not addressed that. We have taken that on. We are reforming the media ownership laws to bring them into the 21st century.
In the Senate today, we are debating some of the most important reforms to this parliament. This is the most important institution in the Australian democracy, and everybody on the other side was united not so long ago—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Sydney has been warned. The member for Sydney will leave if she continues to interject.
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
in saying that the Senate voting system was absolutely undemocratic because it enabled the gaining of group voting tickets to deliver perverse outcomes or undemocratic outcomes, where people who had received a tiny number of primary votes appeared, through elaborate use of preference swapping, to be elected as senators. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters said that that had to go, that it was undemocratic. There was wide community support for that. The member for Brand, who is not in the chamber at the moment, was perhaps the most eloquent advocate of that reform. Then, at the last minute, when my government took that reform out of the too-hard basket and sought to implement it, sought to legislate it, what did Labor do? Labor did the backflip. Talk about dysfunction and chaos. Labor were the greatest advocates of it and then they became the greatest opponents. Now, of course, it is progressing through the Senate, but that is a vital reform to the single most important institution in our country.
For years there has been a diminution, a decline, in confidence in the way that consumer and competition laws operate. Small business, in particular, has felt that section 46, the misuse of market power provision, has failed. There have been many attempts, as honourable members know, to patch it up, after one disappointing court case after another. The clear choice was, as set out by Professor Harper in his review, to move to an approach that sought to protect the competitive process—competition as a whole—and sought to do so by focusing on the effects of conduct by people with substantial market power. That, of course, is consistent with the approach that is taken to protecting competition in Europe and, indeed, in the United States.
Now, of course, the Labor Party—no friend to small business—absolutely opposed any reform of that kind. They said, 'No, section 46 should stay in exactly the same form as it is.' We have taken that hard problem out of the too-hard basket. We have consulted carefully and considered it carefully and we have announced our decision. That is governing. That is making hard decisions. Each of those three cases that I just mentioned—Senate reform, media law reform and section 46—are long-overdue reforms which the Labor Party would not engage with. They did not have the courage, the conviction or the policy commitment to do anything about it, and we have, on all those three fronts. That, together with our other measures, is supporting strong economic growth.
The honourable member talks about tax. I have said more than enough today—I do not think I need to repeat it—about the opposition's negative gearing policy. But let me remind honourable members of this: one of the most important elements in the tax system is to ensure that taxpayers pay their tax and, above all, to ensure that multinational corporations pay their tax, because they have access to advice and structures which smaller companies—and, of course, citizens—in Australia do not have.
When the Treasurer brought forward the multinational tax avoidance bill—a bill that had the consequence of dramatically shrinking the ability of multinationals to dodge tax—it was in line with the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting agenda, so it was entirely coordinated with that of the other developed economies in the OECD. Where did Labor stand on that? What was their policy? They voted against it. The Treasurer was able to negotiate the support of the Greens in the Senate to ensure that it was carried. So the Greens stood up for holding multinational taxpayers to account and the Labor Party wanted to let them off the hook. The Labor Party's hypocrisy on tax is outrageous. Their only tax proposals to date have been to let multinationals off the hook and to slug individuals who want to take a risk, want to invest and want to have a go. Labor stand there, blocking the path to entrepreneurship. (Time expired)
3:11 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That was some of the longest 10 minutes the parliament has ever been through.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Oh, the backbench is still there! I have not heard them for so long! That speech cleared the public gallery and tranquillised the backbench. Who would have thought we would get to the point in question time when the toughest question you could ask a Prime Minister is: 'What is your government's tax policy?' Who would have thought that was the tough one? He would say, 'Why didn't they think of that in PMO? Why didn't they come up with an answer?' What is the government's tax policy? We get to a situation where we have a resolution dealing with it, and what does he talk about? How you change the voting rules for the Senate.
We have a government that have failed every test they set for themselves. They said they would deal with the excesses of negative gearing. That is dead. They said they would never increase super tax. That is dead. They said they would never increased tobacco excise. That is now dead. They said they would increase the GST. That has been shelved for now. They said that they would cut personal income taxes. That is now dead. We now have a situation where every day they get closer and closer to the 2014 budget, brought down by the people they claim to be an alternative to.
Be warned: any time you hear someone from over that side say they are passionate about an issue, the issue is doomed. The Prime Minister was passionate about the republic—doomed. He was passionate about marriage equality—doomed. This guy over here was passionate about dealing with bracket creep—doomed; gone. The Prime Minister was passionate about climate change—doomed. As long as they say they believe in something, be guaranteed they will fly the kite and then they will cut the little cord that the kite is flying on and watch it blow away. Every chance they get, where people think, 'Maybe they're going to stand for something,' this Prime Minister comes in and shows the only leadership he is capable of: to stand for nothing.
Even on the most simple issues—in the Senate, during this same question time, the finance minister was asked: 'When the budget will be?' He stood up and agreed that it would on 10 May. This Prime Minister, in answer to the first question when asked what the date for the budget will be, said, '16 March.' That is today! Yesterday, the Leader of the House was off briefing the crossbench, saying it was going to be on 3 May. So we have three dates for the nation's budget. I have to say, the concept of it being today is just as plausible as anything else the Prime Minister has been offering in this parliament.
We have somebody who created so much hope among a lot of people that the nation's debate, at least, whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him, would improve when he became Prime Minister. Since then, you can find debate, but it is him disagreeing with himself on a daily basis. He gets up in question time and he asks himself questions. He does an interview and he argues with what he said the day before. I have to say, he is doing really well in the debate! It is riveting television! The problem is that it is not taking the nation anywhere.
Tax policy matters. But all the tax policy in all the tax debates is being led by this side of the House, as is the entire policy agenda for the nation. Where the agenda is being led from is shown by the simple fact that if you ask a question about tax policy the only policies those opposite have to talk about are Labor's policies. They are the only ones they have to talk about.
Then the government tried to have their big attack on negative gearing that they had in the drawer. Every time the Prime Minister says, 'Housing prices will go down,' we have the voice of the Assistant Treasurer piping up in the background, telling us that housing prices will go up. Will they go up or go down? The only constant theme is that we are meant to be terribly afraid of both. If fear is all the government have going for them, why did they bother replacing Mr Abbott? He was much better at it.
You would think at some point they would want to stand for something in politics. You would think they would have a reason for being. You would think that there would be a principle. Today at least from the Prime Minister we had the concept of there being a human right—he referred to a fundamental right—when he said that Labor's policy will restrict the freedom of Australians to invest and to negative gear. That is the first time I have ever heard a declaration of the freedom to negatively gear! But that is the principle they have. They have a fundamental principle that the government will give more help to the person buying their second, third or 10th home— (Time expired)
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.