Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. It is reported today that company profits have increased by record amounts. If the Prime Minister gets his way, these same companies will receive a generous tax cut. At the same time, the decision to cut penalty rates will mean workers at the Morley Galleria shopping centre in my electorate will have their pay cut. Is this the Prime Minister's future for my state of Western Australia—taxpayer funded handouts to big businesses but pay cuts for low-paid workers because he supports the decision to cut penalty rates?

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

That was a very revealing question. The honourable member described a proposed cut in company tax as a taxpayer funded handout for business. That is the view of the Labor Party. They believe that the profits of every business in Australia basically belong to the government and that anything that is left after tax is a handout from the government. I can tell you that we do not take that view. We take the view that the profits of Australian businesses, whether they are small businesses, mum and dad businesses or big companies, have been earned by the investments and the hard work of the team behind them. When we tax them, we tax them and should tax them no more than we need to do to meet the requirements of government—and that is consistent with delivering the growth and employment that we need.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

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

The member for Fenner is warned.

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

That used to be the view propounded by the Labor Party. It used to be the Leader of the Opposition's view. It certainly was—unless he has had his book brought back and pulped—the member for McMahon's view in his book.

The fact of the matter is that they know and we know that if you have more investment you will get more employment. If you have more employment, there will be greater opportunities for Australians. Everything we are doing is designed to improve the prospects for employment for Australians, including reforms on exports, investment and business tax cuts and ensuring we have affordable and reliable energy. Every element of our economic plan and everything we are doing is designed to ensure Australians have a better prospect to get ahead. On the other hand, every element of Labor's plan is designed to discourage investment and employment—higher taxes, higher debt and more expensive energy.

The member referred to the penalty rates decision. As I said, this is a complex decision covering a number of awards. There were thousands of pages of evidence given from hundreds of witnesses. The inquiry went on for a very long time. It was started when the Labor Party was in government. It was a very complex inquiry. What we have seen is a decision which seeks to balance penalty rates with the desire to increase employment and create more job opportunities. That is the decision that the former ACTU official Ian Ross and the panel entirely appointed by the Labor Party have come to.

We respect and support the independent umpire. The Labor Party did. The Labor Party should again because it is a fundamental foundation of the industrial relations system in Australia. (Time expired)