Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am interested in this debate, and I am listening to contributions made by other senators. In relation to the last contribution, as I keep saying, I'm not terribly clever, but you don't have to be clever to work out what companies will do with their investment strategies. If they can get a cheaper tax rate in a similar country to Australia, they're looking at their profits, and so they'll make their investment in a country that gives them and their shareholders the greatest return. That's relatively easy to understand. We are a country that does need investment, particularly foreign investment, but the foreign investors have plenty of options. As Senator Cormann mentioned in answer to a previous question of mine, most of the foreign investment that comes into Australia is from the United States. They are reducing their taxes to a much lower rate, and I'm sure it makes investors in the United States wonder why they should be investing in Australia when they can invest in their own country and return a lot more of their profits to their shareholders.

Senator Cormann, in answer to a previous question from me, spoke about Qantas and spoke about it being a Queensland company that started off with three people and now employs tens of thousands right around the world and supports lots of small businesses. That sort of brought it home to me. We tend to talk in the abstract in this place and throw around billions of dollars and use Treasury terminology. It's always very easy to get out of the realm of reality, and this building is very good at doing that.

Again I come back to Senator Hinch's amendment of companies over $500 million turnover being excluded. I've asked the minister's advisers to give me some information, which they have. But I find it difficult to accept that this is what Senator Hinch's amendment would do, because the companies that would not receive the reduced tax, which means they'd be paying more, are companies like Mackay Sugar. The company, self-grown in the Mackay area of my state, just down the road from where I live, owns quite a few sugar mills. It crushes the cane of thousands of farmers in the Mackay region and it employs thousands of workers in its mills. But, under Senator Hinch's amendment, Mackay Sugar would pay more tax than other companies.

The same applies to Sun Metals, a Korean company set up in Townsville to refine zinc. That is a company which made an investment in Australia some years ago, when energy was cheap, I have to say—when electricity was cheap. That's one of the reasons they came to Australia, and I suspect they often regret it nowadays, with the cost of electricity, particularly in North Queensland. But that's a company that can make investments anywhere in the world. Are they going to put more investment into Townsville when they know that a bigger share of any profit they make is going to be taken from them and their shareholders than if they invested their money somewhere else? They have refineries in other parts of the world, so why would they invest in Australia and create more jobs for Australians if they're going to be penalised by paying more tax?

I note in this list of companies—I can't believe it's true, but I'm sure it is if it was given to me by the minister's advisers—is Mantra Group, which owns a lot of hotels around Australia and employs thousands and thousands of Australians. But, under Senator Hinch's amendment, they're going to be paying a penalty tax rate not paid by some of their competitors. JJ Richards & Sons are a waste collection group. I think they're based in Brisbane; they certainly have lots of operations around my home state of Queensland. They fall into the category that would be caught by Senator Hinch's amendment. And I know they're a family company. I've heard presentations they've made before, and they are a home-grown company. But they will be penalised in the tax they pay, if I understand what's being proposed.

Brisbane Airport, another group that, according to my figures, has a turnover of well above the $500 million mark, will be paying more tax than its competitors. The Kilcoy Pastoral Company are an Australian food manufacturing company in Queensland. Senator Hanson would know the Kilcoy Pastoral Company well because it employs a lot of Queenslanders. I dare say, her party having stood at the Longman by-election and seen who took whose card—Kilcoy is, I think, in the Longman electorate. If it's not, certainly the workers at Kilcoy would be living in the electorate of Longman. Kilcoy would pay a penalty rate of tax.

I'm pleased to see Senator Hinch coming back into the chamber. I'm just saying, Senator Hinch, a lot of the companies that would be caught by your amendment about $500 million turnovers—so they'd be getting less of a tax cut—are little companies like the Kilcoy Pastoral Company that Senator Hanson and I know well. I mentioned Brisbane Airport; JJ Richards and Sons; and Sun Metals, the refinery in Townsville. These are all companies that will pay more tax than their competitors. And I repeat, again for your benefit, Senator Hinch—