Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I move to address the substance of the motion, I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by Senator Grogan. At the outset I should say I think it's a good thing that Senator Grogan is not supporting a super company profits tax; I think that's a responsible thing for a member of one of the two governing parties in this country to adopt. I commend her in relation to that. But there were two points I think I should rebut in my contribution to this place. The first is the statement that there is nothing to show in terms of the government debt that was incurred during the last term of parliament. The reality is—and the Australian public knows this all too well—that Australia faced the biggest pandemic crisis this nation has ever faced for decades and decades and decades. I'm sure Senator Grogan has met, as I have met, as all senators in this place have met, small businesses, large businesses and, most importantly, employees of those businesses who were kept employed because of the previous government's JobKeeper program. It was absolutely essential in terms of keeping the connection between those employees and their businesses. I'm proud that I served in a government that adopted that as a policy. So it is not correct to say that there was nothing to show for the debt. There were great things to show for the debt, including the fact this country achieved record levels of employment not seen for decades in the aftermath of the major impacts of the pandemic.

The second point I wish to raise—this is a point I will be returning to constantly over this term of parliament—is this concept that there's all this low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked in terms of addressing tax avoidance measures to be mobilised against international multinationals. This shows a lack of knowledge of the measures which have been taken by the Australian Taxation Office over a number of years. The ATO has brought a number of cases addressing this exact issue. All of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked. There is no more low-hanging fruit in this space.

I suggest to Senator Grogan that she attends estimates, when, no doubt, Commissioner Jordan and his team from the ATO will be present, and they will advise you of the magnitude of tax which has been identified—in particular, potential future deductions for loan interest repayments that have been identified as not being legitimate. It runs into the billions of dollars. The ATO has already gone through, with a fine-toothed comb, the largest multinationals and largest companies in this country with respect to those exact issues which you legitimately refer to. But the concept that there's this magic money tree which you're going to be able to go to and pluck the dollars off in this regard is totally misconceived. People listening to this broadcast don't have to believe me; they can look at the results in the next three years. The low-hanging fruit in terms of international transfer pricing has all been picked from the trees. There is no more. I've got a great deal of confidence in the ATO and the work they've done in that regard.

Senator Grogan also mentioned the OECD's project with respect to the minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent. She's right to refer to that. That's an appropriate segue for me to then move to the Greens supposedly fully funded and fully costed corporate super profits tax. I interjected, in a disorderly way, during Senator Waters's speech in relation to whether or not she would refer to the Parliamentary Budget Office costings. I note Senator Waters did not refer to the detail. I've got the detail here. In fact, I've got 500 pages of detail with respect to the costings of the Greens policies. I've got 500 pages of it, Senator Waters.

I believe in truth in political advertising. It's something which I have advocated for over many, many years. In that respect, I believe that if, as the Greens policy says, something is fully costed and fully funded, you should be able to take that on face value and believe it. You should be able to take that on face value and believe that it is fully costed and fully funded. But the reality is that, when you look at the PBO's costings, that is not the case. This isn't my analysis, this isn't Senator Scarr's analysis—this is the PBO's analysis. Let's read what they say. This is in the PBO's summary on page 1 of the 2022 Elections commitment report of July 2022:

The Greens' platform, if fully implemented, would be expected to result in larger deficits …

So how do larger deficits equate to 'fully costed and fully funded'? Fully funded by debt? I don't think people reading the Greens policy statement would assume that, when they said 'fully funded', they actually meant 'fully funded by debt', but this is the result. The report states:

… larger deficits in total over the same period, relative to the PEFO—

the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—

reflecting higher levels of both receipts and payments as a share of GDP. The impact of the Greens' commitments on both receipts and payments are significantly higher than the other major parties.

This is what the PBO says in their own costings. That does not equate to fully costed and fully funded. You shouldn't have higher deficits if it's fully funded. That's a simple proposition. You don't need a PhD in economics to work that out.

Then you move to page 3 of the PBO's 2022 Election commitments report with respect to the Greens 'fully funded, fully costed' policies, and you see the result of the 'fully funded, fully costed' policies. What's it going to lead to? Table 1 on page 3 is headed 'Financial implications of election commitments by party, 2022-23 forward estimates underlying cash, headline cash and fiscal balance basis ($billion)'. Under the Greens, they all go backwards. Each one of them goes backwards.