Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Treasurer, don't Qatar and Australia export the same amount of gas? Is the Australia Institute correct in asserting Qatar earns $5,100 million dollars whilst Australia only earns $2,300 million? Further, doesn't our tax system result in DINKs getting, after tax, $75,000 per person whilst a three-child family gets only $15,000? Wouldn't a gas tax of $25,000 million and income splitting deliver on 1 June a tax return cheque of $25,000 to every Australian family and $2,000 to every pensioner?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Kennedy for his question. I want to acknowledge at the outset the enormous contribution that the North West Minerals Province and indeed the great state of Queensland makes to our national economy. I think honourable members would be aware that taxation on gas and the resources sector more broadly attracts a range of views. Typically, they are well motivated. Often they are well informed, though I think in this instance—I say respectfully to the member for Kennedy—that might be part of the tax paid by the industry but not the whole tax paid by the industry.

All of these things—and the member for North Sydney's question and your question, member for Kennedy—I think show that all of these issues around resource taxation are contested. What is not contested is that, if our legislation passes the House, we will collect more tax from offshore gas because of the changes in the budget to the PRRT. We will increase tax receipts from offshore LNG by $2.4 billion over the forward estimates. This will help us fund important priorities like strengthening Medicare or providing cost-of-living relief to people in his community or indeed around Australia. Without those changes, we would collect less revenue, and we would be less able to fund cost-of-living relief for people.

I know that the member for Kennedy has a view around income-splitting. Our view is that we have found more effective ways to provide relief to the types of families that the member for Kennedy is talking about—for example, our tax changes. Every one of the 71,000 taxpayers in Kennedy will get a tax cut because of our changes; 86 per cent of them will get a bigger tax cut than they would have otherwise. In fact, the average income earner in Kennedy will have their tax cut multiplied more than three times by what we are proposing in our changes. Because of those policies, whether they be for medicines, tax, support payments, rent assistance or others, we are providing more support to the people of Kennedy. Thirty-nine thousand people will benefit from cheaper medicines in Kennedy alone. Almost 5,000 are benefiting from income support increases. Four-and-a-half thousand renters get our boost to rent assistance just in Kennedy. And, as I said, 86 per cent of taxpayers in his community would be paying more tax were it not for our changes.

I say to the member for Kennedy: I'm grateful for the question, and I know there are contested views about tax on resources. What isn't contested is that we are doing something about that, and that is helping to fund important cost-of-living relief not just in his community but in every community represented in this place.