Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

1. recognises the positive effect of the Government's measures to ensure that it lives within its means, in particular by:

a. legislating tough measures against multinational tax avoidance;

b. delivering disciplined financial management, including through a tax-to-GDP cap of 23.9 per cent and the lowest rate of spending growth of any government in more than 50 years; and

c. maintaining the integrity of the welfare system so that support goes to those who need it most; and

2. notes with deep concern that the Opposition:

a. opposed our multinational anti-avoidance legislation in Parliament;

b. refuses to commit to spending restraint or a tax cap so that the economy is not burdened with higher taxes; and

c. has no plan to support Australians to get off welfare and into work.

Today I rise to move a motion that talks about what the government is getting right, but I do so with sadness. Frankly, it disappoints me that this motion needs to be moved in this parliament. The Turnbull coalition government is not just meeting the expectations and challenges of the Australian people; it is seeking to lead the nation in dealing with the economic challenges and headwinds that are before us. This Turnbull coalition government understands acutely the challenges Australia faces economically and, critically, understands what needs to be done to help us manage the change that is occurring in our economy. The government is addressing the international factors that drive and influence matters like tax and tax contributions but is also making sure that we're a competitive nation in the international marketplace, by making sure there is a limit to how much of a tax burden the government places on the nation and, critically, in the process, making sure we get people into positions of employment so that they can stand on their own two feet and support themselves, their families and their communities, so that they are not dependent on other taxpayers.

The reason I said I moved this motion with sadness, despite the incredible record of this government, is that at every point that agenda has been obstructed by the opposition. At every point, they claim and hark about the idea that they want to crack down on the top end of town, but in practice they vote against multinational tax avoidance. It's the most absurd situation anybody could put before this parliament to claim you're against the top end of town and you want to demonise businesses that are successful in employing Australians and contributing to our nation. But where there's avoidance and where there are multinationals who are not contributing their fair share, the appropriate thing to do according to Bill Shorten—the Leader of the Opposition, I should say more correctly—and the opposition is to oppose the government's agenda to crack down on tax avoidance.

But that isn't the only thing that they've voted against. They've opposed the government's sensible tax cap limiting the amount of money that is taken out of the hip pockets of average Australians to contribute to the overall welfare of the nation, to say and understand that their money is theirs first. Yes, everybody has a responsibility to carry and contribute to the balance sheet of this nation—everyone. But a critical part of that is that there has to be a limit so that people have an ambition, an interest in being able to earn more money and that they're able to go on and make choices and decisions for their lives. In this federal budget we put in a tax cap of 23.9 per cent of tax to GDP. That is a simple and measured response in order to make sure that government does not become bloated any more than is necessary and also that we are not hitting people's hip pockets any more than is necessary.

But, most critically, we are focusing on what we need to do to get people from welfare into work. Everybody in the place, I would hope, understands the pride and dignity that come with people standing on their own two feet, the pride and dignity that come with having a job, the pride and dignity that come with being able to support not just yourself but your family and to be able to help others who are less well off.

The record of this government is quite clear. Since it was elected there are 140,000 fewer people on welfare. That is a huge reversal from the legacy of the previous government, which led to a growth of nearly a quarter of a million Australians living on some sort of welfare. But, most critically, when we take people off welfare—when we take 140,000 people off—it isn't just that they stand on their own two feet. They cease to be consumers of the tax system and become contributors to it. I've always said that one of the critical things for any person to do is take care of themselves, not out of selfishness but because when you are not taking care of yourself you are dependent on somebody else, and, more critically, it denies your capacity to help others. If we want a civil society, if we want a society that's just and fair, then people who can stand on their own two feet must have the chance to do so. But, more critically, we should look at the policy of the opposition, at the fact that they voted against the efforts of this government to crack down on tax avoidance. Since this government has been elected and since the tax avoidance task force and the Australian taxation commission have been introduced we have raised over $5.2 billion income tax liabilities against large public groups and multinationals, and the ATO has collected a further $3 billion in cash, with $2.4 billion coming from multinational enterprises. This government, at every point, is making sure that everyone pays their fair share but also is able to stand on their own two feet.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a motion based on a lie. Labor never voted against The Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. Let me say that again for the benefit of the member for Goldstein, who moved the motion. This is a motion based on a lie, a falsehood. The member is misleading the House. Labor never voted against the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. I know this—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you support it?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Labor did support it, remember? I will take that interjection from the member for Goldstein. I refer the member to the Senate Hansard, 9 November 2015. Senator Dastyari said:

Labor's position is that we support this bill.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the House?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein asks about the House. I will come to the House, Member for Goldstein. There's not a moment in which Labor did not support the bill.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

The problem with the member for Goldstein is he thinks that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. He thinks, because he's sat in the House—

Government members interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will be quiet, please.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and he's heard the talking point from the Treasurer and the minister for revenue, that somehow it's okay to continue to mislead the House. But the fact is, as I've said, on 9 November 2015 in the Senate, Senator Dastyari said:

Labor's position is that we support this bill.

The motion was then amended—

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein is warned.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and it was amended in such a way as to improve tax transparency. The amendments for tax transparency were agreed to by the Senate on 11 November 2015. Labor then, in the House, on 12 November 2015, voted to keep those Senate amendments to improve tax transparency. Then, back in the Senate, on 3 December 2015, we saw Labor voting against the watered-down Greens-Liberal deal, which saw less tax transparency; two-thirds of private firms were moved out of the tax transparency net. Senator Conroy, referring to an agreement made by Senator Di Natale, said it was 'the filthy deal he did with the government'. The amended bill was agreed to on the voices. Back in the House, the amendments to improve tax transparency were considered, with the House voting against both amendments, and in both cases Labor stood again for tax transparency. At no moment did Labor vote against the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. To say that we did is purely and simply a lie.

This is a critical issue today, because we have just seen in the House the government shut down debate over tax transparency. You don't get much more ironic than that. Right now in the House, moments ago, we had members opposite voting to shut down the debate over tax transparency—and not just any debate. A bill was coming back from the Senate that would have brought the disclosure threshold for tax payable down from $200 million for private firms and $100 million for public firms to $50 million for all firms. The shadow Attorney-General was on his feet attempting to that have considered immediately and he was shut down.

The fact is that Labor in 2013 put in place laws to improve tax transparency—measures that the Australian Taxation Office said at the time would 'discourage large corporate entities from engaging in aggressive tax avoidance practices'. But, after coming to office, the coalition waged a guerrilla war against transparency. The member for Kooyong told the coalition party room there was a real concern that wealthy businesspeople would be kidnapped as a result of tax transparency, something that University of New South Wales accounting lecturer Jeffrey Knapp called 'the stupidest excuse for nondisclosure I've ever heard'. When we asked whether the government had evidence, some security advice to verify a kidnap risk, it turned out no advice had been provided by the Federal Police, the Attorney-General's Department or the tax office. No representations were made in favour of a wind-back in tax transparency.

In the Senate, only a single submission was received in favour of winding back tax transparency, from an organisation called the Family Office Institute Australia, which purports to be representative but was in fact an 'astroturfing' organisation. Labor stood in favour of tax transparency. In the case of the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law, we wanted to amend it to strengthen tax transparency. We never voted against it. We voted for tax transparency, and the government right now, moments ago in the House, has again voted against tax transparency.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Effectively managing Australia's economy can seem complicated for some people. It has clearly always been beyond the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition, for example. The shadow Treasurer obviously struggles with the idea daily. And the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finds even aspiration mystifying, so I fear she is a long way off. Only one side of the House understands how to effectively manage the economy, because only one side of the House understands and appreciates business.

Managing a prosperous economy is a lot like running a successful business. Unlike those members opposite, most Australians living in the real world recognise the commonsense principles you need to follow if you want to do either. In business, just like a household budget, if you spend more than you earn then you're going to come unstuck. One of the first and hardest lessons in life for most Australians is: if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

It's a lesson that business owners and working Australians remember every day, but sadly it is a lesson this Labor Party forgot long ago. The Turnbull government has applied that principle rigorously, recording the lowest rate of spending growth of any government in more than 50 years and delivering a tax-to-GDP cap of 23.9 per cent. It's why, for six successive forecast updates, we've been able to project that the budget's underlying cash balance will reach a surplus in 2020-21. It's also why we can already say that the Turnbull government is the first government in a decade that is not borrowing to pay for everyday expenses. If we can't afford it, we're not buying it.

The Labor Party, in stark contrast, are irredeemably and genetically addicted to spending money they don't have. They refuse to commit to any spending restraint because they don't intend to show any. At the last election they promised higher taxes on housing and income, and yet they still would have created a deficit of $16.5 billion—that's billion with a 'b'—higher than us. They're spending that same money again, and then some. Their track record is clear. Under the last federal Labor government, spending was rising by four per cent in real terms, above inflation, on average, while debt was rising by a staggering 30 per cent every year. This is after being handed $50 billion in credit by the Howard government.

Our hardworking constituents also know that, if you charge your customers so much for the services you provide that they can no longer afford to pay for them, your business will fail. If you charge them so much they can't pay their bills and they have nothing left over to grow their prosperity, then your income will soon disappear. The Turnbull government wants to see all Australians prosper, get ahead and keep more of their own money. We don't want to charge Australians any more for their government than we absolutely have to. That's why we've delivered historic tax relief for every working Australian, and ensured that 94 per cent of working Australians will never have to pay a marginal tax rate above 32½c in the dollar. It's also why we have reduced the company tax rate for all businesses with a turnover of $50 million and are working to expand that tax relief. We know that prosperous businesses deliver more jobs, stronger growth and more sustainable tax revenue to pay for the services that Australians rely on.

The price the Labor Party charge taxpayers for their government can never be high enough. No amount of tax is too much for the Labor Party. They fought to stop our tax cuts for working Australians, voting to take $70 billion more out of Australians' pockets. They proposed more than $200 billion in other additional taxes, including extra taxes on housing, electricity, small business, investment income and even pensions—yes, even pensions. In total, they want to take $8,000 more away from every single Australian through higher taxes.

Labor cannot be trusted with our nation's economy. They can't help themselves. Labor always want to spend money they don't have and, when the time comes, it's always Australians that have to pick up the bill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to support the motion from my good friend the member for—'Goldsteen' or 'Goldstine'? I'm sure it has changed a lot.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it has not.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start by picking up on a few points made by the member for Fenner. He said, 'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.' Talk about pot-kettle-black. Here we have a member of the opposition that ran the 'Mediscare' line, the greatest deception in an election in Australia's history. That lie was repeated over and over again, so much so that it will go down in folklore. In fact, thankfully, this parliament has passed legislation, agreed to by the opposition, such that, should they engage in such deceptive conduct again—impersonating a federal government agency—it would be illegal. We wait with bated breath on this side of the House to see what campaign our opponents will come up with at the next election, what story they will tell, and repeat over and over and over again—an untruth to try to again con the Australian public. But I think this time the Australian public will be awake.

When it comes to the issue of corporate tax, one of the most stunning revelations this week was when one of the members of the opposition asked a question in question time about the reduction in the corporate tax rate and asked, 'Where will the money come from?' This is a question we often ask on this side of the House when Labor have their big spending plans. But this was in relation to a reduction in the corporate tax rate. It shows the fundamental difference between the ideologies on this side of the House and on that side of the House.

On this side of the chamber, we understand that the size of the economic pie of our nation, the wealth that we have, is not fixed. The wealth that we have can shrink or it can grow, depending on the incentives that we put in the system. It depends on the hard work of those Australians who vote for us. How big that economic pie grows depends on their risk-taking and their entrepreneurial efforts. The opposition think that the size of that economic pie is fixed and it's just a matter of cutting it up. They don't understand that the very reason that we are reducing the corporate rate of tax in this nation is to grow the size of the economic pie.

This is not just a theory. This has happened every single time in our nation's history when we have reduced that corporate rate of tax. When Peter Costello was the Treasurer, he reduced the corporate rate of tax from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. According to the opposition's ideology, or what they say now, that should have cost the Treasury money. But exactly the opposite happened. The reduction in the corporate tax rate actually resulted in the Treasury getting more revenue in, not only in gross terms but as a percentage of GDP. So we grew the pie and we even made the corporate tax slice of that pie bigger, at a smaller rate. It wasn't only under Peter Costello. Exactly the same thing happened when Paul Keating was the Treasurer. Again, Paul Keating understood. He reduced the corporate rate of tax in this nation and—surprise, surprise!—what happened? The actual number of dollars flowing to the Treasury increased, the economy grew and job creation grew.

This is what we understand on this side of the House. It amazes me that we have members of the opposition wanting to simply run class warfare rhetoric to try to argue against corporate tax cuts. Almost every OECD nation this century has understood this and has lowered the corporate rate of tax, with a few exceptions, including Australia. Even though we have had a magnificent performance from this coalition government, with more than a million new jobs created, we face a future, going forward, where we must get that rate of corporate tax down to be internationally competitive. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.