Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

Just so that everyone is up to speed: we are now dealing with two opposition amendments, one of which I have moved, which is on sheet 2038 and would repeal schedule 4. Soon we will move to the second opposition amendment, on sheet 2043, which deals with the removal of schedule 5.

By removing schedules 4 and 5, the opposition is seeking to hold the government accountable and save the government from itself and the breaking of an election promise—a promise that was given by the former leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a promise given by the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, on not one but five occasions: in January 2021, 30 March 2021, 15 December 2021, 17 January 2022 and 4 March 2022. The two most senior economic people in the government aspiring to win the election, Mr Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers, gave a commitment to the Australian electorate that they would not change the franking credit regime. They gave that election commitment because they were worried that, having incurred an election loss in 2019, it was in large part—not solely, but in large part—due to a commitment by the then opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, to change the franking credit regime, which cost them that election. To create some immunity from that risk for Anthony Albanese and for Dr Chalmers, they went out into the community and said: 'Have no fear. Franking credits will not change in this country.' They said it five times.

What we're dealing with today in the Senate with this Treasury Laws Amendment Bill relates to the government breaking that promise. Proposing that two schedules, schedule 4 and schedule 5, be removed is holding the government accountable, saying to the government, 'Don't proceed with yet another broken promise.' Unfortunately I suspect that the government will proceed, will get the votes to break this election promise, supported by the Australian Greens and by some Independent senators in this chamber.

I just want to stay with the matter of revenue. Senator Bragg asked some questions, but I would like to narrow the commentary and get some commitments and some understanding from the government in regard to my own line of inquiry regarding this matter. I thank the minister for her cooperation to date in making some answers to questions on notice available. I'm just curious to know the time frame in which those questions you've taken on notice will be made available to the chamber.