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

At the request of Senator Hume, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2038:

(1) Schedule 4, page 34 (line 1) to page 40 (line 21), to be opposed.

In the final two amendments in the committee stage of this Treasury laws amendment bill the opposition will be seeking to repeal schedule 4, which is the subject of amendment on sheet 2038, and then seeking to repeal schedule 5, which is the subject of sheet 2043. In doing so we are trying to do a big favour—a very, very big favour—for the government, and that is to stop it from going down the path of breaking another promise. This is not an ordinary promise. It is a promise that was made by Mr Albanese, now the Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader and a promise that was made by Dr Chalmers as the Treasurer. Before we get to the broken promises that are the core of this Treasury laws amendment bill, I will remind you of two other promises.

In August 2022 Mr Albanese as Prime Minister made this promise. He said that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency and not secrecy. Unfortunately, in the previous amendments, on sheet 2161, moved by Senator Barbara Pocock and agreed to by the government, we got a glimpse of some of that secrecy. The opposition did not oppose the principle of what was contained in Senator Pocock's amendment—not at all. In fact, we agree with the principle that sits behind the amendment. But what was demonstrated in that very, very brief committee stage was that Senator Pocock and the Australian Greens were not completely prepared to share with the Senate chamber what was the community stakeholder engagement and the industry stakeholder engagement around their proposition, and the government itself could not or would not share with the chamber whether or not it had consulted with peak industry associations on that amendment. What does that mean? That means it could go wrong. That means it could not be as perfect as Senator Pocock and others would like it to be. Why did we have some concerns about that consultation process and why did we want to draw it out in the committee stage? It was because the industry associations themselves had said that they were surprised about the amendment. It came as a surprise.

We have had and continue to have a thorough Senate references inquiry into the PwC scandal, which everyone in this chamber agrees is outrageous and everyone in the community agrees is outrageous. It is a committee process that is still ongoing—I am happy to stand corrected; Senator Colbeck is in the chamber. For those in this chamber who agree that the Senate process is one of the standout features of our parliamentary democracy, what we just saw was a group of people say: 'We'll just take this out of the process. We're not going to consult with anyone. We're going to drop it into the Senate and we're going to legislate it.' In further questions the government they couldn't even say whether the scrutiny process to give effect to this would be expedited. From Senator Pratt's contribution—reading between the lines—it could possibly go wrong. Really? We have a thorough Senate committee process. We have engagement with stakeholders on a broad range of issues, but on this particular issue some key stakeholders—the Institute of Public Accountants, CPA Australia, CPA New Zealand, the Tax Institute, the Law Council of Australia, the Bookkeepers Association—were not consulted. That does not bode well. The Prime Minister said to people in August 2022 that he believed that Australians deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy—let me add to his quote—'on some matters'.

I turn to the matter that is before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. On three separate occasions, the Prime Minister said there would be no changes of this kind brought to the parliament. In January 2021, the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, promised not to make any changes to franking credits. Remember? He did that because he remembers all too well that Australians rejected the former opposition leader Bill Shorten and denied him the opportunity to govern this country in the 2019 election in large part because of Labor's plans on franking credits. So the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, said, 'The best way to protect myself and the best way to protect my party is to give a commitment that we won't touch it.' And he gave that commitment in January 2021. Then, on 30 March in 2021, the Prime Minister, as opposition leader, thought: 'I better give it to the Australian electorate again. Let me give them that commitment again just in case they haven't heard me.' He said on ABC radio that Labor won't have any changes to the franking credits regime. In March 2022, Treasurer Chalmers was on ABC radio in Perth, in my home state of Western Australia, and listeners were told that Labor would not be touching franking credits—a broken promise on a litany of other broken promises in just 17 months of this government.

The coalition in the Senate is seeking to repeal schedules 4 and 5, to allow the government to make good and stay good on that election commitment that was given to Australian voters. Prime Minister Albanese, when he was the opposition leader, knew exactly what he was doing. This was not about tax. It was about raising taxes, but it wasn't about trying to give Australians a degree of comfort around tax issues and franking credits. It was a political ploy to remove one barnacle from their possible re-election—the issue of franking credits that had caused them so much harm in the 2019 election. He said: 'We'll fix this. We'll go out there not once, not twice but three times.' Then Dr Chalmers goes out there and says, 'We won't touch franking credits.' And many retirees and mum-and-dad investors thought: 'Great! What a relief. Labor has learnt the lessons from the 2019 election.' How wrong were Australian voters! How wrong were they to have trusted Anthony Albanese, opposition leader now Prime Minister, and Dr Chalmers, then shadow Treasurer now Treasurer. How wrong they were, unfortunately, to have trusted Labor because Labor has broken their promise.

What we are seeking to do here—what Labor, with the support of the Greens and unfortunately some of the crossbench, is seeking to do—is honour their broken election promise. How remarkable! If you read the excellent dissenting report that Senator Bragg wrote you will see page upon page of evidence from people saying that this will harm them, and it will harm them at a time when they're feeling most vulnerable with regard to their financial situation because of the cost-of-living crisis—because of interest rate rises and inflation. We think that every election commitment should be honoured, but, when I think about all of the election commitments that this government has broken in just 17 months, I would think that this is probably the election commitment that they should absolutely keep because it will take the financial pressure off retirees and mum-and-dad investors. If the Australian Greens and the crossbench let the government get away by legislating this broken promise, it will just give the government permission to break other promises or even to make promises and break them—if this Senate chamber is not going to stand up and say, 'We're not going to have it.' And the best way you hold Labor accountable is by supporting the opposition's position to repeal schedules 4 and 5. (Time expired)