Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and

(2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay.

You heard today in question time from the government that somehow the parliament is frustrating their failure last night to extend the instant asset write-off for small businesses throughout Australia, plunging small businesses into unknown territory in relation to their taxation arrangements. What the Treasurer failed to state in question time today was that, in fact, the opposition moved a similar motion just a couple of months ago to bring on this bill for debate—to bring on an extension to the instant asset write-off to give small businesses the certainty that they need. We moved a motion just a couple of months ago to give small businesses the certainty that they rightly expect from the government in relation to their taxation arrangements, yet the government voted against that motion. So we're giving the government another opportunity today. If they are fair dinkum—if what they were saying last night was truthful rather than a monumental blunder or, even worse, a calculated decision to rip away a tax incentive for small businesses—then they should support this motion.

The Treasurer claimed at the National Press Club today that somehow the parliament has delayed or stalled this bill. He's blamed the Senate. He's blamed the opposition. But, as I have just outlined, the government themselves voted against a motion to bring this bill to the House.

We now are on the eve of a new financial year and on the eve of an election, and the government has cruelly ripped away a tax incentive for small businesses. We're not talking about major businesses in this country; we're talking about small and family businesses who are making decisions today about investments for the new financial year with absolutely no certainty of what those tax arrangements will be.

We know, for example, that this government cruelly reduced both eligibility for and the quantum of the instant asset write-off. We know that no-one in the government has an interest in small business. The small-business sector made that very clear last night in their assessment of this budget. Imagine going to a budget and telling the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in this country and the millions of people who work in small businesses—the engine room of our economy—that you are cruelly and in a calculated way ripping away a tax incentive that, quite frankly and quite rightly, they have come to expect. Sure, they were very unhappy when the government reduced eligibility for and reduced the quantum of the instant asset write-off. But they would not in their wildest dreams have imagined that, looking at the budget last night, that would be entirely ripped away to the point now where the instant asset write-off has dropped to $1,000 for the next financial year.

We saw today in question time the Treasurer, slippery as an eel, using very cute language, but he couldn't confirm that there was money in the budget, which is why this motion is so important and why this suspension of standing orders is urgent. Can I emphasise to the government, to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Small Business, who didn't seem to have a clue what was going on in question time, that this is urgent. The urgency for small business is what drives this suspension of standing and sessional orders now.

Small-business owners in this country should not be put in a position where they are potentially buying that piece of plant equipment, buying the new coffee machine for the cafe or installing new equipment in their hair salon—myriad businesses. You can think of 10,000 business types and the assets they're thinking about. They don't just go into Myer one day, pick these things off the shelf, walk back to the business and install them. They've got to make these decisions months in advance. For many small businesses, a decision about whether or not to upgrade that piece of equipment, buy that asset, make that additional investment in the productivity of their people—their employees, who they often treat like family more than staff members—or make investments to make their businesses more productive is a decision that, in the end, may be catalysed by the fact that they can instantly write it off for tax purposes, not depreciate it over its effective life. I would have thought that members opposite knew that. I would have thought members opposite would be on the phone now to the Treasurer, saying, 'Hold on; I've got thousands of businesses in my electorate that are being left high and dry.'

This fake excuse that the parliament has somehow held it up is utterly wrong. It's misleading the House and is the worst alibi possible. Just admit it. To the government: you either made a calculated decision to remove this from the budget or you have overlooked it. Either way, the suspension of standing orders is absolutely crucial—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister, on a point of order?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that is before the House is about suspending standing orders, not the substantive issue he's been going to for five minutes.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the member back to be substantive suspension motion.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The suspension of standing orders is urgent. The point that must be made to the government through these remarks, whether you want to hear them or not, is that there is an urgency to this. If the government will not recognise that this is urgent and therefore requires the suspension of standing orders, then quite frankly they are even worse—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the minister on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the House, as has been done previously when the opposition have moved suspensions on bringing forward government legislation, this is the first that the government has been aware that the opposition would now be willing to support the entire bill.

No, we're trying to work this through.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Let the minister complete.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first we've been aware of the opposition being willing to support the entire bill. If that is the position of the opposition, then we can do all this by leave. We can do it straightaway, and it will go through the Senate tonight. We had not been advised of that until this motion, but, if that is the position, we can bring it on now. You don't need the motion, and we'll put it through all stages straightaway.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll respond to the point of order. On 12 February—I would be very surprised if the Leader of the House is not aware—I moved a virtually identical motion to this. If the manager is now suggesting to the House and to me that he was not aware of that motion on 12 February—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I see it?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll finish my remarks; I've got two minutes to go.

I will complete my remarks, and then we can talk. The Leader of the House has just made a claim. I'm sure he's being entirely honest with the House in saying that he was unaware, but I am shocked that he was unaware that the opposition moved this motion to bring on the bill in February, because we were conscious of the fact that small businesses in this country cannot just turn on a dime and make investment decisions—as I said.

There's an urgency here, which is why I'm moving to suspend the standing and sessional orders. The other reason why we need to suspend the standing and sessional orders to bring this on immediately is that, somehow, the government's been claiming that it's not their decision to park this bill, that it wasn't their decision to put this on ice, meaning that small businesses are now in limbo. They're claiming that, somehow, it was the decision of the Senate or of the parliament.

That was directly an accusation or assertion made by the Treasurer today in question time. Now, again, if the Treasurer is suggesting he was entirely unaware of a motion brought to this House seeking to bring this on for debate, it is negligence in the extreme. Small businesses deserve better from their government. Small businesses deserve to be at the centre of the government's thinking, not some afterthought or irritation.

So suspending standing orders is critical on this matter today, because, quite frankly, we have seen a government all at sea on this issue. They don't know what they stand for. They don't know whether they support small businesses or not. Perhaps they will be shamed into supporting small businesses in the end, kicking and screaming. If that's the case and if that achieves an outcome for small business, then we'll be very pleased to have led that debate here in the chamber.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business's time has expired. Is there a seconder for the motion?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and I'll speak to it now. It's so important that this bill is dealt with right now, because, on 12 February, the Labor Party voted against their own bill, and, if we don't get this sorted today, there will be thousands of small businesses around the country that won't be able to write off assets that they've already purchased. In this financial year alone, there are people that might have gone out and put solar panels for renewable energy on their roof to reduce their electricity bills, which have doubled under this government—a 100 per cent increase for most businesses. There'll be cafes and so forth that have bought new equipment—it might be a brand-new coffee machine—that they're expecting to be able to depreciate this year, but they won't be able to. It will have to be depreciated over years, because this government hasn't sorted it out.

They've come to parliament today—and there's a little bit of hypocrisy here—wanting to put through tax cuts that are worth five bucks a week and that aren't due until 15 months from now, but they won't deal with the instant asset tax write-off when we've literally got two months to go with it. This is why it's so urgent, and the Leader of the House should know that, on 12 February, they voted against their own bill.

There are others—it might be carpenters or pest controllers or plumbers—who may have found a vehicle under 20 grand or new IT equipment that they bought in the last eight, nine or 10 months. If the government doesn't support the opposition's motion today and actually vote today on their own bill for the instant asset tax write-off, then those businesses will get to the end of the financial year, and it won't be there. It will be up to a new government, after the election, to put it through and make it retrospective.

In the budget last night, the ongoing instant asset tax write-off was killed completely. For the people of Moreton, there'll be no more instant asset tax write-off after you've gone, Graham. It'll be back to $1,000—it wasn't extended in the budget last night. What we're talking about right now is the instant asset tax write-off from last year's budget that still hasn't been legislated through the House and Senate.

The Treasurer doesn't even know what's going on because he said at the Press Club today, 'It's been held up in the Senate.' It hasn't even been to the Senate! It's still being held up here; you voted against it on 12 February. The Treasurer doesn't even know what is happening with their own legislation in relation to small and family businesses and sole traders. There are all these people out there whose electricity bills have doubled in the past three years under this government, and what do they put in the budget? One hundred and fifty dollars!

The instant asset tax write-off is important for the thousands of people who work in small and family businesses, for all the assets that they've bought to date. It could be a whole range of other things. It could be recycled timber that they've put into an office fit-out that cabinetmakers have put in, where it's come under that $20,000. Unless the government gets the bill through the House and the Senate today, they won't get it. They will have spent that money, and it will have to be depreciated over years and years. So I hope the Leader of the House is going to get it through and vote on their own legislation, unlike what they did on 12 February. That will be a win for small businesses, and we'll be happy.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all I'd like to clarify a couple of things that have been said in debate. It is common that tax law bills do remain in the House until we have an agreement in the Senate. We put lots of legislation through the House as quickly as we can, and then the Senate does amendments. A lot of amendments for anything that involves appropriations or revenue issues can't be done in the Senate. So it is not uncommon at all for bills of that nature to be kept in the House until we have a situation where we believe there is passage in the Senate. Then they go through here fairly quickly and go across. At the time, on the date in February—I've just asked some people about the context of that—(1) at that point we were not confident that we had support in the Senate; and (2) on that same day we were trying to get the three-day guarantee with respect to early childhood education through. The upending of the program was something that we weren't willing to do that day.

My understanding, from the speeches that have been said, is that we now have the support of the opposition for that whole bill. That was not previously the understanding of the government. There are other measures in that bill as well as the instant asset write-off. That day, as I've said, there was an issue with the upending of the program, as I've been advised; I've gone back through it. The other issues include the deductibility of interest payments for late payment and the luxury car tax adjustment, if it is as it appears from the speeches.

The capacity for amendments and disagreement between the houses is not actually with us because the Senate doesn't sit tomorrow. So I just want to be really clear. The opposition is making a decision now, in moving this, that they will support the whole bill in the Senate. Anything other than that will mean that this particular procedure will have prevented the instant asset write-off from being carried. That's what it will mean. They want to progress the government agenda. I'm happy to progress it. Up until this moment that has not been their position.

But I'm saying to the opposition now: if you're ever going to say, 'Oh, we'll just have a disagreement between the houses,' you can't do that today because we all know that these houses won't be sitting in their current form for too much longer. We all know that the Senate is not sitting on Thursday. In supporting this, we take the Opposition at their word that they are now supporting the entire bill. If that's not what happens in the Senate, we'll be in a situation where there is not an agreement between the houses and there is no way of resolving it. The action of the opposition right now is potentially the only reason we don't have a way of getting it through. So I'm going to take the opposition at their word. I'm going to take them in good faith. They have said they will support the whole bill. I'm going to presume that there will not be a backflip in the Senate. The opposition are now saying they'll support some of these measures that they have previously opposed. I'm going to welcome that. If they are consistent between 10 minutes to five in the afternoon and midnight tonight, and if they don't change their position between those hours, then we will get something through that the government has been trying to get through for months and months. I hope that is the case, and on the basis that that's the case and that we can take the opposition at their word, I'm happy to support the resolution and to see the passage of this legislation go through to the Senate.

Question agreed to.