Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This amendment appears to emerge from the public concern surrounding the behaviour of the big banks, uncovered by the royal commission. There is no doubt that many of the practices that have been exposed have been appalling and that many ordinary people have suffered greatly. Many of the senators have spoken about this today and at other times in this place. But I have made it clear that I regard a consideration of the company tax cuts to be distinct and separate from the behaviour of the big banks, and I said as much to the government, and publicly, when I opposed the consideration, in March, of the initial legislation. I have considered the case for and against the company tax cuts thoroughly, on their merits and on the basis of evidence, but I do not believe that the government bringing forward legislation today to exclude the big banks is the appropriate way to prosecute their case, which they have been doing consistently for the past months in which I've been here as a senator.

I spoke yesterday regarding the bill as presented previously, and my focus was on that and on the future of the economy and the future of our families. I am, as a South Australian, a passionate advocate of South Australian businesses—and I note that Senator Cormann referenced a South Australian business today. I do note that business is the backbone of the economy and I will do all that I can to encourage business growth and prosperity. But my review of the evidence to date about the tax cuts legislated already is that they have not delivered the changes in employment and wages, as indicated by the modelling provided to me by Treasury and other sources, upon which this legislation was based. I have consistently noted that I found the legislation too narrowly based and the benefits too small to outweigh the costs. Whilst they've now been reduced from $35.6 billion to perhaps $7.9 billion less, they are still very considerable in terms of the future need for funds to tackle the budget deficit and growing government debt and also the services that Australian people wish to have. I reference the intergenerational reports, which indicate a further and growing need, particularly in aged care and retirement as the populace grows older. So I see the tax cut itself, even with the big banks removed, as not true tax reform. I don't believe that it's in line with the clear principles outlined within the Henry tax and transfer review. There were at least seven principles, of which a company tax cut was one, and Senator Cormann has noted that with me previously. But it was one of seven principal feature reforms that were all to be brought about together.

So I will not be supporting these amendments. I believe that the conduct of the banks should be referenced in another forum—be it the royal commission findings or APRA and other entities set up to do so—and that putting forward a piece of legislation just to remove the big banks in order to gain support is not an appropriate way to move forward. So I remain opposed to the extension of the tax cuts as legislated, even with the removal of the big banks or, under Senator Hinch's proposal, a threshold of $500 million in turnover. The evidence I've seen on the changes from 2015 is that they have not delivered what was indicated, and we have significant gross government debt and future requirements for services that need to be funded.

There are arguments that many foreign investors are looking at Australia in terms of many, many aspects alongside, but outside of, the company tax rate headline figure, which is often quoted by government senators and other advocates of this. It's a misleading argument because, to date, we have gained significant foreign investment into Australia against other economies, even in our region, that have much lower headline company tax rates. Investors come to Australia for a variety of reasons. So to indicate that there's going to be a massive problem with investors choosing not to invest in our country, given our headline tax rate compared to the headline company tax rates of other countries, is slightly misleading.

In summary, I have considered the case for and against these company tax cuts thoughtfully, on their merits and on the basis of evidence, and I remain opposed to any extension of the tax cuts as legislated, even with the changes made today.