Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is it fair that the Prime Minister is hitting ordinary workers with a $44 billion tax increase to pay for his $65 billion big-business tax cut?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. I'll answer the member with his own words, which were, as we recall, when he was talking about DisabilityCare, a scheme which is overdue in Australia. I'm glad the opposition, to give them credit, has come onboard to support it. He was referring, of course, to us when we were in opposition:

It was not easy to introduce. We took it to the Productivity Commission. They gave a report on how it should be done. We did have to increase tax to pay for it, increase the Medicare levy. That's something that was very controversial when we did it but I think the right thing to do because all Australians would recognise that as a decent, compassionate nation, it is the right thing to do now. It is overdue.

What a hypocrite the shadow Treasurer is, Mr Speaker! What a pathetic hypocrite!

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you talking about? Mr Speaker—

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

The Treasurer will withdraw.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker. But, through you, Mr Speaker, he cannot run or hide from the fact that the shadow Treasurer, on this matter, has had more faces even than the Leader of the Opposition. They're all around; they look in every direction—every single direction!

What the shadow Treasurer is seeking to do to the Australian economy is to tax it within an inch of its life—more than $200 billion in higher taxes. And I've only talked about the ones they've announced so far. I notice today that the shadow Treasurer is out there quoting Per Capita research; The cost of privilege, it's called. He basically says that a person owning an investment property—one in five police officers and 38,000 nurses—is engaged in some sort of tax rorting. If a retiree is simply getting a tax refund because of the dividend imputation system, then apparently this is a big rort. The insult from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer is to treat these Australians with contempt and tell them that they're somehow cheating the tax system. But what he doesn't refer to in the Per Capita research today is that that research that he's referring to, which is apparently the cost of these great privileges and loopholes, includes an estimate of the cost of the CGT exemption for family homes. And, as he goes around and quotes research from the Grattan Institute when it comes to the issue of their retirees tax, let's not forget that it's the Grattan Institute themselves that want to include the family home in the assets test for the pension and also to apply capital gains tax to the family home. This Leader of the Opposition is off the leash on tax.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Would the minister update the House on how small businesses will benefit from a lower taxing economy, and whether there are any alternative positions?

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Menzies for not only his question but also his long-held faith and belief in the small and family businesses in his electorate, some 16,500 of which are already benefiting from the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's enterprise tax plan. The member for Menzies knows that the small and family businesses in his electorate don't exist in a vacuum. The economy is full of businesses of all sizes. And in the most recent survey, when they surveyed small and family businesses, on a ratio of six to one, they have argued that tax cuts be extended to big businesses as well. Why? Because they benefit from it because they form part of their supply chains.

I mentioned the Treasurer, the finance minister and I visiting Qantas recently and talking about the 3,000 companies. And I noted that, when I did that, the member for Kingsford Smith took to Twitter and said, 'But they don't pay income tax.' No. He's obviously a fan of Alberici-nomics. They made a loss in company tax. They made a loss and they're carrying that forward, but what have they done in that period? They have taken some of that money, they've turned around, and they've invested it in their staffs' pockets. So far, since 2014, they have paid non-executive staff bonuses amounting to $220 million. Why? Because when you cut taxes—in this case, perfectly reasonably, because there was a turnaround off the back of large losses—businesses will then incentivise and bonus their staff. We are seeing it in the US across the board as we speak. That is the reality of how small and family businesses—in fact, businesses irrespective of size—conduct their operations.

What is the alternative approach? On the other side of the House, they believe that the Leader of the Opposition is the best person to tell small and family businesses in this country how much of their money they can keep. Why? Because he's the best-placed person to tell them how they should spend it. He has never run a family or a small business in his life, yet he wants to determine how much they have left in their pocket—their own profit. What do they do with their profits? They reinvest in themselves, they back themselves, they take on bank debt, they hire people and they put their home on the line every day. They head off, and they're the last to pay themselves when they do this. But 1.1 million small and family businesses that made not $1 in profit last year nevertheless paid $39.5 billion in salaries to their staff. The reality is the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and we on this side of the House have a plan. We are prepared to back small and family businesses. Those opposite aren't, and I'm happy to campaign against them.

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen was reflecting on the minister's family, and I'd ask that he withdraw.

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

The member for Petrie will resume his seat.