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

Excuse me. Amendments were put forward by the government to exclude the banks, something I have been suggesting in this chamber and elsewhere since March of this year. The government today, through Senator Cormann, put forward amendments that would exclude the big four banks, the robber banks—whom you and the Greens oppose—and stop them getting the tax cuts if this bill goes through. Senator Cameron, you and Labor voted in favour of the banks getting tax cuts. You can dress it up as you like, but that's what you did this morning. That's what Senator Wong did. That's what Centre Alliance did. That's what the Greens did. One Nation have voted in favour of the banks getting a tax cut. I know it's tactical, but, on the record, you voted this morning in favour of the big banks getting tax cuts.

When the bill comes up, I will vote against it too, but at least the government's being consistent on my suggestion that they cut out the banks, the robber banks who've been stealing money from people for years. Yes, the government did oppose a royal commission. The royal commission, thanks to the Greens and Labor, was a great idea. With what they're pushing out there now and what the banks are being exposed for, they deserve to be punished over it. They are paying a levy. But, in terms of this morning's effort, put it on the record: the Labor Party, the Greens, One Nation and Centre Alliance voted in favour of the big banks getting a tax cut.

I'm hoping that, having rolled back on the banks, the government will now take the second half of my suggestion—that we should restrict the tax cut now to companies with turnovers of up to $500 million. If they want to give it to the other companies—to Goldman Sachs, as you mentioned, to Qantas, to Rio Tinto, to BHP—if they want to do that, if they think that's such a great idea, they should take it to the federal election. If they get re-elected when the election comes up, either tomorrow or next year—if the people vote in favour of the government and they get re-elected—I will look again at increasing the tax cuts for other companies. But that's down the track. In the meantime, I suggest that we go for the $500 million and then take it to the election if it's such a great idea.

That's why I say that I was sitting here quite surprised. Why the heck didn't Labor vote to knock back the banks this time round and then cross the floor again when it comes to the final vote? You're not being pushed into anything. For months you've said you don't want them to get the tax cuts. The Greens have said they don't want them to get the tax cuts. And yet you are now on the record as saying that the banks should not be excluded. There was an amendment that was quite specific that the four major banks should not get the tax cuts, and you voted in favour of the banks.

On that note, I think it might be time for me to move the amendments on sheet 8439, which say that these tax cuts for companies should be restricted to companies with turnovers up to $500 million. Last year the government agreed to this. I don't believe in a two-tier system. If Labor get to government at the next election, they're going to punish the small-business people by taking away their tax cuts that have already been legislated. They want companies with more than $2 million not to get those tax cuts. They may edge up towards $10 million. I think that's on Senator Wong's—