Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Farmers all over the country will have just broken out in a big sweat when they think that the Greens are finally standing up to articulate matters that are in their interest. I will say that one of the features that come out of the contribution from the Australian Labor Party and their coalition partners, the Australian Greens, is of course that they leave the facts out. The story does not sound anywhere near as compelling when the facts are left out.

Senator Polley interjecting—

I am pleased that I have the attention of Senator Polley. Let's first of all debunk the story about our government introducing the backpackers tax. The facts of the matters are that in the 2012-13 budget, the best Treasurer the world has ever seen, Mr Swan, introduced the rate of 32.5c, which is now loosely referred to as the backpacker tax. So it is a Labor-Greens backpacker tax that we are dealing with. I am pleased to see that Senator Whish-Wilson fits the description of another senator here now who understands the Constitution better than the High Court, and we now have a situation where he understands tax rules and tax laws better than the Taxation Office and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who visited this question in 2015. This where this dilemma comes from. The Greens-Labor backpacker tax was tested in the—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Through you, Madam Deputy President, I know this is really inconvenient rhetoric for Senator Polley, but if you sit there quietly, kick your shoes off, throw your legs up and have a listen, you are going to learn something out of this, Senator Polley. Here are the facts: you introduced the tax at 32.5c, so it is a Greens-Labor backpacker tax, if you want to give it that name. In March 2015 the tax office took three matters to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the question posed was whether these backpackers were residents of Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that they were not residents and, therefore, they were subject to the 32.5c—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I know that Senator Whish-Wilson often does not put as much research into matters as he ought to, but I am happy to help him, because I have put the effort in. It was the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that made the ruling that they could not—in the contribution made by the senator before me it was almost suggesting that if you are confronted with the form, and you are a foreign national, a backpacker from Panama or Patagonia—I do not even know where Patagonia is—confronted with a form asking, 'Are you a resident of Australia?' you would tick the box. On your version of events, that is all that needs to happen. In fact, that is inconsistent with the law. The law does not support your principle. I really think that people looking at the Hansard of your speech ought to do a little bit of due diligence themselves. I expected a bit more from someone who has been a banker. But of course the contribution was not being made by a banker; it was being made by a grape-grower who uses this labour on their farm and does not want them to pay any tax. You talk about a conflict when you made some reflections on me. But let's get back to the issue at hand. This was Labor's—