Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we are looking at in the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 5) Bill 2015 is a series of minor taxation amendments that are really designed to raise $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. This is an approach—and I think it shows a reasonable approach—between the government and the opposition who have been able to come together and work together on these tax measures and where there has been agreement and consensus. I think it is worth acknowledging the work of the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, in this space. I note that both the federal Treasurer and the federal Assistant Treasurer have played a very positive role in this space in allowing us to have this sensible debate.

Labor will always support sensible savings measures which improve the budget bottom line without harming vulnerable Australians. This is consistent with our sound, fiscal plan to bring the budget back into balance by delivering more savings spending over the coming decade. I do note, however, that, while there has been agreement in this space and while this is legislation that we will be supporting, it is disappointing that the government have failed to acknowledge Australia's revenue challenge. Since taking over the job, Treasurer 2.0, Scott Morrison, has continued to parrot his predecessor's line that Australia has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Talking up spending is simply the government's way of preparing the ground for more cuts. The government believe that, if they keep talking about a spending problem, Australia might eventually get away with things like $100,000 degrees, cuts to the pension and cuts to family payments. The fact is that those on this side of the chamber believe that we have both a spending and a revenue problem, that both of these matters need to be tackled and that they need to be tackled sensibly if we are to address the revenue challenges facing this country.

Between 2014 and 2015 Australia's revenue projections were written down by $52 billion. That flows through every corner of the budget. Today, spending is at 26 per cent of GDP, but revenue has fallen to 23.5 per cent. As former Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, said:

… a bit more than half of it is explained by a deterioration in revenue performance; by the tax system not delivering in the way that the tax system has delivered in the past.

The International Monetary Fund agrees. In its most recent report on the Australian economy it noted, 'While expenditure reduction can and should play a role in reducing the fiscal deficit, there may be a limited scope for this avenue since expenditure is already relatively low compared to other advanced economies.'

This bill has four schedules. Schedule 1 simplifies the methods of calculating work related car expense deductions to ensure the tax act becomes more closely aligned with actual expenses incurred. Schedule 2 improves the integrity of the zone tax offsets by restricting access to individuals genuinely living in the designated regional and remote zones. Schedule 3 introduces a $5,000 cap on fringe benefits tax concessions on entertainment expenses for not-for-profit workers. Schedule 4 implements a technical integrity measure first proposed by the previous Labor government. Schedules 1 to 3 are essential savings measures and Labor has previously indicated its support for schedule 2. Schedule 3 is consistent with the recommendations from the Productivity Commission's Henry tax review and the final report of the Not-For-Profit Sector Tax Concession Working Group. Among those affected are employees of public benevolent institutions, hospitals and ambulance services. The proposed value of the cap is opposed by, among others, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Salaried Medical Officer Federation, the Victorian ambulance union and the Community Council for Australia. ABS data shows that the average spending on meals out and fast food is less than $5,000 for all but the top fifth of taxpayers.

This is a sensible bill that includes sensible savings measures. It is a bill that is worthy of passing through this chamber and is worthy of the support this chamber, but it does highlight a fundamental flaw in the thinking and the arguments that are put forward by this government. I commend the bill to the Senate.