Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Prime Minister will personally benefit from his $80 billion handout to big business through his investments in dozens of big businesses. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, through at least 15 of his 39 managed funds, he invests in 18 businesses that have a turnover of more than $50 million and an additional 14 businesses that have a turnover of more than $1 billion per year? Can the Prime Minister confirm how much these dozens of big businesses will benefit from his big business tax handout?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. As I've described to honourable members before, Australians know my life story. It's hardly a secret. Over the course of my life, Lucy and I have worked hard; we've had good fortune. We have paid tax—paid a lot of tax—we've given back to the community and we have been able to achieve a great deal. There was a time when the Labor Party would have certainly welcomed that. Most Australians, the vast majority of Australians, seek to work hard and get ahead. When they do, they pay their tax and they contribute to society. Historically, both sides of politics have welcomed that but apparently not any longer.

The honourable member has asked about my investments, which are set out in the members' interests disclosure. As honourable members would be aware—and I've explained why I've done this in the past—the funds are managed by an external financial adviser. The liquid investments in securities are overwhelmingly held in managed funds and they are almost entirely offshore-managed funds. The reason for that is so as to avoid conflicts of interest in Australian shareholdings. That is the situation. If honourable members opposite want to start a politics-of-envy campaign about it, I don't think they'll be telling people anything they don't know.

But I would just remind honourable members opposite that virtually every member of this House who has interests in Australian superannuation funds—and I particularly note AustralianSuper as being one that is very well-supported or patronised by members opposite—has investments in all of the big multinationals, all of the big companies and banks, and so forth. So the idea that the honourable member wants to create—that somehow or other my wife and I are in a special, unique position in terms of our shareholdings—is absolutely wrong.

By all means, the honourable members opposite should go ahead with it if they wish, but I have to say that the politics of envy is one that has failed in the past. Labor leaders, with success, have united Australians and have called on Australians to be optimistic, to be ambitious, to look forward, and to aspire. Australian Labor leaders who have been successful have talked about the value that the member for Grayndler— (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on why it is important to have tax policies that reward hard work? Is the minister aware of any threats to the hip pockets of working Australians?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She, like those on this side of the chamber, understands that Australians work hard for their money and they should keep as much of that hard-earned income as possible. She understands, as we do on this side of the chamber as a government, that it is not the government's money; it is the individuals' money. That is why I'm happy to note here in this chamber the government's historical Personal Income Tax Plan that allows individuals to keep more of their hard-earned income that they work for, whilst also guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. Our plan delivers lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all Australians—principles that we on this side agree with.

The contrast with those opposite could not be clearer. They are for higher, bigger, and more taxes. That is something that unites every single one of them—perhaps with the exception of one. Maybe I am being a little unkind in tarring all of those opposite with the same brush. Maybe there is one amongst them who dares to speak out and dares to be different. And I just want to highlight the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler is so aspirational that last Friday he broke ranks with those opposite and said that Labor should celebrate the importance of individual enterprise and the efforts and the importance of the business community. I kept reading through his speech and I'm a little sad to say that there wasn't terribly much more that I could agree with, because, of course, he talked about the fact that the Labor Party is not a single-issue party. But the Labor Party is a single-issue party. It is the party of higher taxes. This is, in fact, something that motivates them. This is something that they truly believe in.

Let's consider the evidence. Labor will raise taxes for small business and family enterprises. They are going to raise those taxes. Those people who want to earn, or who aspire to earn, more than $90,000 will pay higher taxes under the Labor Party. They will increase taxes for those people who have superannuation accounts and investments. And, if you happen to survive the tax tsunami that those opposite would like to wreak upon the Australian people, when you retire they will come after you, as well, and they will deny you your tax refunds. It all adds up to more than $200 billion worth of new or increased taxes. They are going to hit Australians, young and old, because they believe in higher taxes. The government knows that those Australians who work hard for their income deserve to keep as much of it as possible. Those opposite would deny it to them. (Time expired)