Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. I call the minister.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to stand and discuss the much-improved bill that has come back to us from the other place, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. The amendments that the senators agreed to will see farm owners and investors protected from new taxes that would otherwise have been imposed by the government. It will see small businesses provided with additional time and capacity to deal with the tax office before the tax office takes the serious step of reporting them to debt notification agencies. It will close a loophole allowing superannuation theft not closed six months earlier, and this will put an end to certain businesses pocketing their employees' rightful superannuation guarantees.

But I'd like to note that the amendments to schedule 3 of this bill would never have happened if the Assistant Treasurer had been the only one on the job. I remember very well being here on 31 July as the Assistant Treasurer stood across from me and assured me that the schedule in question was:

… simply an integrity measure to tighten the link between claiming deductions for holding vacant land and earning assessable income.

I remember quite clearly raising some concerns about the schedule. The Assistant Treasurer claimed:

These amendments will not apply to land held by the owner or related entities to carry on a business where there is a substantial building or premise on the land or where a property has been built on the land and it's available for rent.

Later on, on 2 September 2019, I was unsurprised to read the Assistant Treasurer claim in the Daily Telegraph that the proposed changes would not affect owners of unsafe residential towers. But, as it turns out, nobody else agreed with the Assistant Treasurer. As a Victorian, he may not be across the issues that are going on with unsafe residential towers that we have learnt about here in New South Wales, but we on this side of the House are.

In the same article in the Daily Telegraph, the tax practice leader at Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Mr Michael Croker, noted that:

… newly constructed apartments impacted by structural defects, for example Opal Towers and Mascot Towers—

in Sydney—

… could be inadvertently caught by these provisions as they are no longer lawfully able to be occupied due to the structural defects …

We also had the Tax Institute of Australia note in their submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill that the government's own measure could impact on farming land, leading farmland owners paying more in tax. This was a shocking revelation as farm owners already stricken by the drought that this government is comprehensively failing to address adequately would've been forced to pay more taxes due to the poor drafting of the Liberal and National governments. I acknowledge that the government probably didn't intend to pass legislation that would see farm owners and investors pay more tax as a result of these measures. Indeed, the government's own senators recommended that these issues must be addressed in their report on the bill.

We now have, happily, the Assistant Treasurer, three months later, backing the amendments that Labor first drew to their attention when the bill was in this House—problems that they claim never existed. However embarrassing it may be for the government to admit they made a mistake, that embarrassment pales into insignificance when compared to the burden that would've been visited upon the owners, or the renters, of uninhabitable premises or the owners of that land that would have attracted that tax in advertently.

We thank the government and the Assistant Treasurer for finally getting onto the job and fixing up the problems with their original bill. We commend these amendments to the House.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank the shadow Assistant Treasurer for supporting the bill. He had supposedly a whole lot of concerns that he couldn't explain at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight he's now trying to rewrite history. But, nonetheless, I thank the way in which the shadow Assistant Treasurer and his office have engaged.

As I said at the time, it was never an intention of this bill, nor is it very arguable, that in its original form met the intentions that the government stated at the time. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with putting it beyond doubt and ensuring that senators, in particular, with specific concerns around vacant agricultural land and indeed properties affected by natural disasters, are made crystal clear in the bill. In that sense, I was very happy as minister to accede to their request, noting it was never the intention of the bill that it be done so. To put that beyond doubt, I think this is a very good outcome for the House.

I also want to thank the Centre Alliance, in particular, for some of their recommendations in relation to assisting small businesses in relation to one of the schedules. Again, we were very happy, as a government, to accede to sensible requests to clarify, make very clear, what was always the intention of the legislation. We therefore commend the bill and the amendments.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.