Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister: Why is this snobbish Prime Minister telling workers, Australians, to get a better job instead of supporting Labor's plan to give 39,000 people in Braddon who earn less than $125,000—including aged-care workers—a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they'll get from this government?

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

I'm not going to call the Prime Minister immediately. I'm going to address an issue with this question—indeed, with a number of questions that have been grating with me for several days now—and that is the use of these abusive tag lines that are in them. It leads to a—

Honourable members interjecting—

I will address the chamber without that. The member for Hotham was reflecting on me, in which case she can come to the dispatch box and withdraw.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker. My apologies.

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

I will just make clear that I'm going to address the House without interjection. This, of course, leads to a situation best summed up by the member for Jagajaga's question in the last sitting week, where the Prime Minister was given a huge character assessment that wasn't a question, and that has followed in questions since. This then led to the Prime Minister, naturally, responding to what was part of the 30-second statement and question, with the member for Jagajaga then complaining about the response. As I pointed out, there was no way I was going to allow that question to be asked and then curtail the answer.

My personal view is that this demeans the House because it leads to very aggressive questions that have statements in them that simply aren't questions. That particular question has taken it, I think, to a new low. Now, I am just flagging with the House that I'm not happy with how this goes. I've never wanted to curtail debate, but the 30-second time limit is for questions. I have allowed preambles, but if they are going to end up leading down this path then I'm flagging now that I will be taking a different approach.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I raise a point of order?

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

Yes, I'm happy to hear you on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to clarify for the purposes of question time preparation whether the ruling you have just gone to goes only to questions or also to the words that are used in answers.

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

The point I am making is twofold. The 30 seconds is for questions. I've allowed preambles, but, if the preambles are becoming abusive and that then leads to a response in the answer, that is the point I am making.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to detain the House—

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

Well, I tell you what—don't; just sit down for a second.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right will cease interjecting. I've just indicated to the House that I am uncomfortable with how this is going. I'm not making a ruling; I've just indicated that I am uncomfortable with how it is going. If it keeps proceeding down this path, the parliament will be demeaned and the public, rightly, will be quite dissatisfied. That question has a particular word in it that was used in an interjection yesterday. If we're going to go down that path, I am just saying that I will end up taking action. Having made the statement I've just made, I would hope that it is not beyond members to take some corrective action themselves. I am monitoring the situation. On this occasion I will call the Prime Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll take the opportunity from the question to refer to some important benefits that will flow to the residents and constituents in Braddon from the government's economic plan. There are 39,300 taxpayers in Braddon who will benefit from 1 July this year from our Personal Income Tax Plan, with around 14,600 who will receive the full $530.

But that is not all: were Labor to be able to impose its retiree tax, grabbing back the franking credits that retirees are able to enjoy under a law that is fair and has had bipartisan support from the time—

Mr Watts interjecting—

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

The member for Gellibrand will cease interjecting. If the member for Gellibrand wants to say anything, he will have to get himself a question, frankly. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

This is the modern Labor Party. They are not even capable of running an effective class war. What do they want to do on the retiree tax? If you are a wealthy investor and you have lots of investments and you get some franking credits from your listed stocks, you can use those franking credits to offset your other tax liabilities. You can do that.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

The honourable member opposite is very happy with that. But he's a very confused class warrior because if, on the other hand, you are a retiree of modest means and you are not paying tax—you have a superannuation fund; it is a retirement account and it's not paying tax because of those superannuation rules—and you get some dividends with those franking credits, you don't have other tax liabilities to offset them against. So, from around the year 2000, with bipartisan support—it was Labor policy as well as coalition policy—people in that situation have been able to get the tax credit refunded. That has been fair; it has been obvious. But what the member for Gellibrand, his leader and their whole team want to do is cut retirees' incomes by 20 per cent, 28 per cent—as one lady in her 80s told me—and right up to 30 per cent. How many people are there in Braddon who will be hit by that? The answer is 3,534. In terms of company tax, Tasmania is experiencing a strong economy. There are over 8,000 businesses in Braddon— (Time expired)