Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Hansard source

In March, I went on Sky News and offered a compromise. I told Samantha Maiden I would vote for company tax cuts to 27.5 per cent and eventually to 25 per cent for Australian companies with a turnover of up to $500 million. I would not, and could not, include the banks. That offer has been on the table for the evangelical tax cuts spokesman, Senator Cormann, for months and months. In those months, we've seen day after day of disgusting evidence proving why the major banks should not be rewarded. We've seen proof of how they have cynically, deliberately defrauded their own customers, even taking money from deceased estates—stealing pennies from dead men's eyes, as Mick Young would say.

I've said before that when I arrived here, two years ago as of next week, some learned, earnest and respected people—like the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, and the finance minister, Senator Cormann—told me about a key word in Canberra. That word was 'compromise'. As the Prime Minister found out again over the NEG and emission targets over the weekend and again today, 70 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing—that's what they told me. As I said, my $500 million compromise has been on the table for months. I'm offering an amendment to that effect later tonight. It could bring tax relief to more than 4,000 Australian companies. I've even told the government that I would vote with them if they bring on an amendment to bring forward the deadline for the cuts to kick in for companies with turnovers of up to $50 million.

I'm trying to help them find a way through a hostile Senate crossbench. I'm not a Luddite, I'm not an isolationist and I'm not xenophobic. I believe we must have lower company tax. They have dropped to 20 per cent in some of our trading partners and even lower than that in others. They are down to 17 per cent or 19 per cent in Singapore. Those cuts have also been reflected across the EU. The most publicised drop, which has prompted the government's moves, has been in the United States. Sadly, that has not led to huge pay rises for workers. Much of that bonanza has gone to share buybacks and increased dividends. I fear the same could happen here.

The Prime Minister was the one who infused the company tax issue into the Super Saturday by-elections. I believe he made two political mistakes. Sitting governments virtually never win seats back from the opposition in a by-election—not once in almost 100 years. By-elections are always seen as a way to punish the government at the time. The usual excitement is to see by how much. On Super Saturday, the Prime Minister, as I said, made two mistakes. First, he said the by-elections were virtually a popularity contest between him and Bill Shorten. He also said it would be virtually a plebiscite on company tax cuts. That went down well, didn't it?

I've told the government that they should support my compromise. They should support the cuts for companies with turnovers of up to $500 million. Take the proposed cuts from banks and other big Australian companies to the general election next year if you're so proud of them. If you are re-elected on that platform, obviously we on the crossbench will have to have another look at it. Also, don't feed me the two-tier bulldust argument. You voted in favour of a two-tier system when you voted for the $50 million cut-off. A company turning over $51 million misses out now. That's called a tiered system.

It's the same with personal taxes. If you're earning $100,000 you may pay one tax rate while somebody on $101,000 pays a different tax rate, or something to that effect. And I should say, if you think my resistance to company tax cuts is because of some antipathy towards company tax cuts or towards all tax cuts, then think again. I think I was the first crossbencher to back the revolutionary personal tax cuts announced by the government in the last budget. The truth is that out there in the real world the voters do not believe that more tax cuts should be given to the robber banks. They also don't believe that those multinationals who are not paying their fair share of tax in this country should get a tax cut.

In conclusion, if the evangelical Senator Cormann really believes all of this, then take it to the ballot box. I dare you. Meanwhile, remember my argument: 70 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. Grab it while you can and get yourself out of the smelly cage you have built for yourselves.