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

First of all, I don't want to let Senator Cameron off the hook with his Scottish brogue about this rabble of a government, which is his normal speech. What we're forgetting here is that if, or when, a Labor government comes in, they will want to cut the benefits already fought for for small and medium-sized businesses that have a turnover of more than $2 million. We may get them through Senator Wong and we may get them up to $10 million, but we've already legislated, and the government has folded to us and given us a $50 million turnover limit. That was organised last year. Labor wanted $2 million; former senator Jacqui Lambie and I got it to $10 million; and Senator Hanson, through One Nation, and I got it to $50 million. That's where it sits now.

But that makes a joke of Senator Cormann's saying we don't want a two-tier system of taxation. You've got one now. You agreed to it last year. Anybody who has a turnover of $50.1 million doesn't get it. In the same way, I'm pleased to see you're now carving the banks out, because I proposed that on Sky back in March. I'm pleased that you agreed to it. I will vote for your amendment to carve out the banks—the robber banks—who should never have been in there in the first place. At the royal commission, daily, we see what they are doing. Daily, we see the way they've been stealing money from estates. Daily, as I said yesterday, we see they have been doing what Mick Young, the Labor hero, used to say: stealing pennies from dead men's eyes. We see the disgraceful behaviour of the banks, and not just the big four but AMP and other people as well. And we have seen also what their superannuation funds have done. They do not deserve a tax cut. I'm thrilled, Senator Cormann, that you realise finally that the banks deserve to be carved out of this.

But don't give me this rubbish about a two-tier system, because, as I said back in March—and I've got an amendment coming up here in committee shortly—I believe what you should be doing now is taking the threshold from $50 million to $500 million. At the same time, I'd vote for you if you put up an amendment that said, 'I want to advance the tax cuts for the smaller companies from 27½ per cent to 25 per cent,' and that moved the cuts forward by one or two years. I wouldn't mind. I'd vote for that as well, because I believe in company tax cuts. I believe they should be there, but out there in the real world—the voter world—they don't believe you. You proved it in Longman. You made Longman an unofficial plebiscite on company tax cuts. You also made it a popularity contest between Prime Minister Turnbull and Bill Shorten, and that didn't work very well, did it?

I would say to you, think again. Bring in an amendment that says $500 million. You have much vauntedly said, 'We'll take it to the election.' The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, has said, 'We'll take it to the election.' You said in this chamber last week, 'We'll take it to the federal election.' Well, take it to the election. I give you a pledge now that if you take it to the election in April or May—or if you change prime ministers and have one earlier, take it there as your major proposal—and the people of Australia vote you in on it I'll look at it again. In the meantime, the Justice Party has said since March, and we've stood firm despite all the things you've thrown up: 'We will go to $500 million for companies.' That will improve things for the business—and the workers, as you put it—of about 4,000 more companies. You're the one, Senator Cormann, along with Scott Morrison, who said to me that 'compromise' is the buzzword in Canberra and that 70 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. Well, a $500 million company limit, giving 4,000 more companies tax cuts, is more than 70 per cent of something, and you should think it through again.