Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce ends his contribution by saying, ‘What is this crowd over there doing?’ What is this crowd doing? I will take the bait, and I will give Senator Joyce and the chamber some guidance as to what this government is doing in responsible fiscal administration of the Australian economy. This crowd is being balanced, this crowd is being responsible, this crowd is being responsive, this crowd is being considered and this crowd is being thoughtful. All of those adjectives describe our approach, as demonstrated in the past 2½ years, to the administration of the Australian economy: thoughtful, responsible, balanced, responsive and considered.

And in the context of the Henry tax review, it is not really greatly surprising to hear those opposite have not had any interest at all in engaging in the content or the substance of that debate. In terms of the independent tax review, we have taken, as I said, a sensible, responsible approach to long-term tax reform and that is why the government, which has received the report from Dr Henry, is giving it active consideration in the responsible offices and, as has been indicated by the Treasurer, at the appropriate time prior to the budget in May the report will be released.

We have not engaged in any useless or senseless or inconsistent speculation as to what the review might contain; we have not been floating stories and suggestions in the media as to where it might be going. The report has been commissioned, its terms of reference were made public, it has been the subject of thorough analysis, and it is now the subject of response to the government of the day, and the Treasurer, as I indicated, is giving it active consideration. But, as I have said, all along we have provided a well-considered explanation as to where we are going, as to the importance of tax reform in this country, which I might suggest has been the hallmark of all governments since the Hawke government took power in 1983.

The Hawke government instituted tax reform at a range of levels in this country, and I must say that when the Howard government came into power in 1996, for good or for bad, it introduced the GST, which was a form of tax reform. So all we are doing is continuing the long-term path that has been established in this country by successive governments: identify a problem, appoint an expert or a panel of experts to investigate the issue, consider community input and views, receive the report, and then, instead of releasing the report the day after it is received in the responsible office, give it some thoughtful consideration and consider how it might be integrated with the other issues that face the government of the day.

That is a considered, thoughtful, responsive, responsible approach to the Henry tax inquiry. It is a thoughtful, considered, balanced, responsive plan for going ahead in due course when Mr Swan chooses to release the report for publication some time prior to the budget. When one thinks about it that will be some time over the next 10 weeks. This review has been two years in the making, but it is part of 25 years of ongoing reforms. There has been 25 years of substantial reform by, first, the Hawke and Keating governments and then by the Howard government. Further work has been commissioned. It has been received and it will be released, along with, I suggest, a very useful action plan for the implementation of those matters that are considered worthwhile and appropriate.

In terms of the other matters that were raised by Senator Joyce, he cloaks his argument by presenting questions on the Henry tax review relating to the mishmash of a maternity leave policy that his leader presented early last week. That was simply a plan for uncertainty in the future. It is a reckless idea, thought up the night before, put on paper as a few words in a public forum and released as such. There was no consideration as to its real costings, no consideration as to its impact on the corporate sector in this country, no consideration as to its flow-on effects on those smaller elements in the business community, no consideration given at all as to whether it can be a one-off payment— (Time expired)