Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 put up by the government, but first let me clarify a few points that were expressed by Senator Burston today in the chamber.

The agreement, first off, was that One Nation were supporting the corporate tax cuts. Then, on reflection, the budget which was handed down in May showed that there was not going to be much money in the budget surplus by 2020—only about $2.2 billion. The personal tax cuts are going to cost the people of Australia $144 billion when they're introduced, and the corporate tax cuts that One Nation actually supported—we voted with the government—of up to $50 million are going to cost around $35 billion to the economy. On reflection, if the corporate tax cuts were to be passed, they would cost the economy in total $80 billion. That would mean that the Australian people would be at a loss of $224 billion in revenue. That concerned me, and hence my phone call to both Senator Burston and Senator Georgiou on 1 June to indicate to them my concerns about this and my belief that we should actually pull out of the corporate tax cuts. They both agreed. Actually, I've still got a record of that telephone conversation—nine minutes—with Senator Burston. He had no disillusion with what I was asking and totally agreed with me.

He also made reference to the fact that I sacked him as whip because he would not vote against the corporate tax cuts. That was not the case whatsoever and was never in the discussion. Peter Georgiou was actually in my office at the time. Senator Burston was taken out of the position of whip because he was not doing the job and not reporting back. I remember clearly that I was down here to ask a question and didn't know whether I had the call and Peter Georgiou rang me on the phone and asked whether I had it and I said, 'I don't know.' That's why Senator Burston was taken out of the position of whip. And I asked him whether Peter Georgiou would be all right as whip, and he said, 'Yeah, that's fine by me.'

I'd just like the truth, not the conjured-up lies that are made in this place. The reasons behind Senator Burston withdrawing his support for the corporate tax cuts is that he saw the writing on the wall that he was not going to get preselected as No. 1 on the ticket in New South Wales, so he gave me grief and gave the party grief and pulled support for the corporate tax cuts, thinking that I would actually relent and that I would actually endorse him to get his support. Hence when he received a letter from me asking him to resign from the party it was because he was chasing after the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to join their party, which they refused him, and he was seeking other parties to join. Then, finally, he was endorsed by the Palmer United Party on the Friday before he walked into this chamber and stated that he was an Independent. So, again, he couldn't be up-front with people. But that's the way it is.

But the whole thing today is about the corporate tax cuts and my reasons. I've listened to a lot of the debate with regard to the government's company tax cuts from both sides of this house and from the crossbench. Let's look at the speculated impact it may have on our country with regard to further investment and jobs. We have been told by the government that dropping the business tax rate to 25 per cent will create jobs and increase wages. But of course tax is just one factor in creating jobs. The government wants us to follow suit with the company tax cuts in America. Otherwise, they say, we will miss out on investment. But are they also following suit on reducing energy costs that are crippling our manufacturing industries and small businesses?

The USA has reduced its company tax rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent, not taking into account the added individual state company taxes that equate to a further two to 12 per cent, depending on which state you are in, giving an average of 26 per cent overall. A couple of months ago I went to Ireland as part of a delegation and I asked the member for parliament there, 'You actually have a 12½ per cent tax rate?' They said yes, and they said, 'For the multinationals—if you can get them to pay.' If you put out there that you're actually wanting to reduce it because the rest of the world is reducing their corporate tax rates, then, to me, that is a race to the bottom, because if you drop your corporate tax rates here, when we can clearly not afford it, then another country in the group will reduce their rates to beat you. So, how much is this going to go on? We can't afford it in this country.

If we are comparing apples with apples we cannot overlook an important fact, which is that the USA has some of the lowest energy costs in the world, and this is why they have—and will always have—a clear advantage over us, regardless of how much we reduce company tax. If we truly want foreign investment in Australia, to create jobs, then we must target the real issue, which is energy costs. No political party other than One Nation is trying to stop the ever-increasing out-of-control energy costs that are impacting upon every home, business and industry in our country.

In my talks with the government I have been asking for tax reform in the area of natural gas and other hydrocarbons, because with the exception of one joint venture project, we're currently giving away our gas for free. The low return from petroleum resources owned by Australia is a consequence not of tax avoidance or tax evasion but of a poorly designed tax system introduced by Labor. Despite widespread acceptance of the need to get paid for gas taken from Commonwealth waters, Labor has been mute on this important matter. They spoke about it today in the debate on Senator Georgiou's bill. I guess it needs the huge donations from foreign owned multinational petroleum companies more than it needs to pay down Australia's debt mountain and create new and better jobs. Natural gas and associated products are owned by Australians, and we need to be paid for them by way of taxes on those companies that profit from them. If we can get payment for our gas through tax reform then we can invest billions of dollars in Australia and create more and better jobs for generations.

Government cannot create jobs but it can remove impediments through tax policy, which is the reason I take such an interest in tax bills. In my mind the government's tax cuts bill is about jobs, and jobs are the means by which Australians maintain their independence from government. All those people who wanted to be a fly on the wall in my negotiations with the government need to know only that jobs were uppermost in my mind. But what future does our next generation have when both sides of this House have failed in their duty to encourage and support our ongoing investment in Australian tradesmen and tradeswomen? For too long the major parties have seen immigration as the way to meet our need for skilled workers. The balance between creating skilled workers and importing the skills we need has been lost, because the major parties have lost focus and purpose.

Labor's record in relation to jobs and those in work is a disgrace. It was Labor who withdrew employer incentives for a wide group of apprenticeships in 2012 and destroyed pathways for skilled jobs, but that was not enough destruction: in the same year Labor caused the loss of 2,400 experienced TAFE teacher jobs, and TAFE enrolments fell by 50,000. Over 50 country towns with TAFE colleges suffered as a result of decisions made by Labor. It is Labor who argues that hundreds of thousands of foreign students with work rights are not taking jobs from Australians in the 15-to-24-year-old age group.

Labor dudded Australian workers through enterprise bargaining agreements or EBAs. These EBAs have seen hundreds of thousands of workers get lower hourly rates than similar but non-unionised workers. Penny Vickers stacked shelves at night at Coles when she challenged the 2011 enterprise bargain agreement with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. She challenged the deal made between her union and Coles, because she was worse off under the union negotiated agreement. In February this year Coles offered 77,000 low paid workers a new deal because of Penny Vickers, not because of her union. It was Labor that opposed One Nation's amendment, which would have seen penalty rates restored to those who had lost them under unfair EBAs. Labor says one thing but does another, and in my mind that makes them untrustworthy. Labor wants to use tax policy to promote class warfare in this country. I will never support tax policy that promotes class warfare.

I want everyone to have a chance in life to learn and to work. For too long we have seen the decline of apprentices regardless of what trade. TAFE colleges across the country have shut. Employers fear for the ability to pay wages for a trainee over a period of years when they may find themselves at times unable to draw a wage. Under my proposed apprenticeship pilot scheme program I want to give 1,000 Aussies an opportunity for a trade and a future. Under the proposal the government will pay the employer 75 per cent of the first year's wage, 50 per cent of the second and 25 per cent of the third. In this way the government partners their education and training as they do for anyone who may attend other educational schemes, including university. The program is intended to give those Aussies who live in rural and remote areas the first bite of the cherry in taking up apprenticeships on offer. It is important that we address the high youth unemployment outside of the cities, and give encouragement to the youth to stay in their towns with their families rather than moving to the cities looking for work.

The proposed and partially legislated tax cuts for companies have next to no support in the Australian community. Of course, sales are not profits, because expenses like the cost of goods sold, wages, energy costs, interest on borrowing et cetera need to be deducted before profits can be calculated and tax liability determined. One Nation supported the tax-rate cuts for businesses with up to $50 million in turnover, despite knowing that any threshold for the tax cuts would encourage businesses to restructure. It's common knowledge that the government wants the 25 per cent tax rate to apply to all business. The government's case for tax-rate cuts for all business is weak. Nothing the government has said has changed my mind.

So what has happened to get my support for the tax-rate cuts for businesses with sales above $50 million? The government has rightly been criticised for the failure to make these tax-rate cuts part of a package of wider tax reform. When the government came knocking at One Nation's door looking for support for removing the $50 million sales threshold for tax cuts, I decided to take the opportunity to start tax reform in relation to Commonwealth-owned natural gas. It is well known that there has been huge investment by foreign-owned multinationals in gas located in the 2,400 kilometre North West Shelf geological formation, which lies off the coast of Western Australia. Less well known is that Australia will receive through the taxation system next to nothing for our natural gas, while foreign-owned multinationals will make billions from the sales of this gas each year.

The government and Labor shake with fear at the prospect of foreign-owned petroleum multinationals campaigning against their candidates at the next election if they take steps to reform the tax system applicable to gas and other hydrocarbons. Both major parties are unwilling to develop a bipartisan plan to get foreign-owned multinational gas companies to pay for our gas so that we can all benefit, in the way Norway and other countries have done. One Nation last year announced its policy to place a royalty on gas in Commonwealth waters to revoke long-held licences that could go into production but are not being used, and to get gas reserves for Australia at a low price so that electricity and gas prices would fall dramatically. One Nation is shocked that Japan's government makes nearly $3 billion a year by placing an import duty on our gas and we get a few hundred million. I have sought to get the government to reform the tax system in relation to Commonwealth-owned gas in return for support for tax cuts, but the government has rejected placing royalties on gas taken from the Commonwealth. It has also rejected a serious overhaul of the petroleum resource rent tax system, which has created a wall of unearned tax credits that see these companies able to ensure they will never make a profit on which tax is payable. Nevertheless, some changes have been negotiated which will see limited reform of the PRRT system, and some of these changes have already been leaked to the press by the government. If there are any changes to the PRRT in the reduction, it's because of One Nation and our push on the government. And if they actually open up these retention leases, which have been held by some companies for over 30 years and never utilised, it is because of One Nation—because we put pressure on both the National Party and the government to actually start doing something about it so we get royalties and more money flowing into this country.

I will not support this bill. I'm getting criticised for it but, as more comes out, and the public are aware of what the cost is going to be to this country and for future generations, a lot more people are now saying no, they don't want these corporate tax cuts. My negotiations with the government also have been that the banking royal commission must be paid for by the banks, and there must be a compensation fund to pay people who have lost their properties and face devastation because of the banks. There are many areas that we need to clean up, and I will go on and on about this until it is done—until the government realises that we are losing so much money from our resources in this country to multinationals that come out here and rip it off.

Of the revenue that we have, 75 per cent is paid by the PAYE taxpayer, those people who have to pay their taxes. They don't get the deductions and they hand over their money. But corporations and other multinationals in this country, those that do pay their taxes, write down everything they possibly can. We need to have a thorough look at our taxation department. They are overworked and they are reluctant. They can't go after a lot of the people they need to. As I said, 75 per cent of our revenue base is from the PAYE taxpayer. Twenty-five per cent comes from corporate tax. Of that corporate tax, 98 per cent is paid by Australian companies and only two per cent by multinationals.

This has been my argument in this place since I was in the other place in 1996, 1997 and 1998. It as about the multinationals paying their share of tax in this country. You are in fear that we're going to lose our sovereignty. No, they come out here because it's a good deal and because we have a safe place. We have the resources, and they can get on and get the job done, not like in a lot of these countries that are faced with terrorism. They come here because they know it is the best place.

And yet we have done free trade agreements that allow them to bring in their own workers. Here we have multinational companies that are employing staff overseas in call centres. They are using their pay as a tax deduction here in Australia. It's disgraceful. You talk about wanting jobs for Australians. I don't see it. I don't see it from either the Labor Party or the coalition.

We have got the best country in the world to prosper like we did in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the1950s, after the war. But we are sliding into this quagmire, this swamp, because you're reluctant to do anything, because you're in fear that you're going to lose the multinationals. What are you losing? Absolutely nothing, because they don't pay their tax here.

Where are you going to find money? Our ever-increasing welfare bill is up now to $187 billion, and it's growing. You've got that many migrants coming into the country that we can't afford the infrastructure, the nursing homes, the hospitals or the schools. Yet you still want to throw out and give these tax cuts. I want to see Australian companies get their tax cuts. They need relief, by all means, but do it in a well-managed way, and don't do it so that we're going to hand on a hell of a debt, a bill, to future generations that they will never be able to pay back.

What will happen is that you're going to have countries like China coming and asking for the money, and ending up with our resources—our ports, our airfields and our land—as they have done in Sri Lanka and in Greece. You think it's not going to happen, but it will happen because of bad management, poor government and the lack of decent opposition in this parliament. You'll only get good government if you have a good opposition, and the Labor Party's not it.