Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Joyce today, relating to the Henry tax review.

It seems interesting that we have a government that are starting to accumulate a virtual library of unpresented reports. They are not going to release that KPMG-McKinsey report and now, most importantly, we have the Henry tax review. They stated that they would release this report early in the year. We now have the latest from Mr Swan, which is that it will be released by 11 May.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Would Senators please conduct their conversations outside the chamber. If you wish to remain, please sit.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is not infrequently that Senator Joyce gets an opportunity to speak and I would be appreciative if people could move outside the chamber.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hutchins, that is out of order because I had already asked senators to leave the chamber, and you well know it.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am enamoured by the fact that the Labor Party like to hang around to listen to every word I say. That is good. They should listen. The point I want them to take note of—and it is very important—is this. When are we going to get the Henry tax review? If these people are supposed to be prudent fiscal conservatives, when will we get the opportunity to plan how the major revenue item of our nation is going to be ascertained? It is not just the opposition that has huge queries about the competence of this government and its incapacity to release the document. Where is this document? On which coffee table in Mr Swan’s office is this document now sitting?

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe they just can’t understand it!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or they can understand it but they are terrified by what it says. More to the point, why is there strategic leaking by the Labor Party of sections of this report? How do you possibly manage to put the statement of a fiscal conservative hand in glove with the leaking of details of the major revenue-obtaining item of the government? Why don’t you just have the fortitude and the decisiveness to release this report? Now Mr Swan, in his latest contribution to ACCI, said they will definitely release it by 11 May. Surprisingly enough, that is budget day. They will have it released by the day of the budget. They said it was going to be released early in the year. Has May now become early in the year? As far as the Labor Party is concerned, the middle of the year has now become early in the year. This is the height of imprudence by the Labor Party. This is the height of irresponsibility by the Labor Party. Major questions are being put by our major exporters. Don Argus is on the record clearly stating that he has serious concerns. This concern is being fanned by the flames of the uncertainty that has been brought about by the Labor Party.

Our good friends in the fourth estate are starting to ask serious questions about why the Labor Party has been so coy about releasing a major document. What do people in the press gallery need to do? When do they get their chance to go through this document? The Australian public have a right to know what is in it. Are you going to go forward with the Henry tax review? Every day these questions have to be asked. Are you serious about this? Are you going to withdraw it? What is the purpose of the Henry tax review if no-one gets to see it? It has been about 85 days now. What on earth are you doing with it? Has this become a new form of origami? What is the purpose of this document? Does the paper come in soft crunching forms to be used around other sections of Mr Swan’s office? What are you up to? The nation is fascinated. Has the Henry tax review become an elaborate doorstop? Is it now being used by Dr Henry to entice hairy nosed wombats from their burrow? Maybe it is ceiling insulation. We know we have paper for ceiling insulation. Who would know with this crowd, the Australian Labor Party? What exactly has happened to this premier financial document of the nation?

This is a crowd that is financially out of control. This is a crowd that is racking up debt on a trajectory never seen before. This is a crowd that has no control over finances. This is a crowd that is putting upward pressure on interest rates. This is a crowd that owes money to every man, woman and child everywhere else in the world. This is a crowd that is a huge financial risk to our nation. It is there for all to see. Their critique of management is no better exemplified than in the Home Insulation Program. The same management critique that brought a national disaster out of putting fluffy stuff in the ceiling is now being given to the Henry tax review.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce ends his contribution by saying, ‘What is this crowd over there doing?’ What is this crowd doing? I will take the bait, and I will give Senator Joyce and the chamber some guidance as to what this government is doing in responsible fiscal administration of the Australian economy. This crowd is being balanced, this crowd is being responsible, this crowd is being responsive, this crowd is being considered and this crowd is being thoughtful. All of those adjectives describe our approach, as demonstrated in the past 2½ years, to the administration of the Australian economy: thoughtful, responsible, balanced, responsive and considered.

And in the context of the Henry tax review, it is not really greatly surprising to hear those opposite have not had any interest at all in engaging in the content or the substance of that debate. In terms of the independent tax review, we have taken, as I said, a sensible, responsible approach to long-term tax reform and that is why the government, which has received the report from Dr Henry, is giving it active consideration in the responsible offices and, as has been indicated by the Treasurer, at the appropriate time prior to the budget in May the report will be released.

We have not engaged in any useless or senseless or inconsistent speculation as to what the review might contain; we have not been floating stories and suggestions in the media as to where it might be going. The report has been commissioned, its terms of reference were made public, it has been the subject of thorough analysis, and it is now the subject of response to the government of the day, and the Treasurer, as I indicated, is giving it active consideration. But, as I have said, all along we have provided a well-considered explanation as to where we are going, as to the importance of tax reform in this country, which I might suggest has been the hallmark of all governments since the Hawke government took power in 1983.

The Hawke government instituted tax reform at a range of levels in this country, and I must say that when the Howard government came into power in 1996, for good or for bad, it introduced the GST, which was a form of tax reform. So all we are doing is continuing the long-term path that has been established in this country by successive governments: identify a problem, appoint an expert or a panel of experts to investigate the issue, consider community input and views, receive the report, and then, instead of releasing the report the day after it is received in the responsible office, give it some thoughtful consideration and consider how it might be integrated with the other issues that face the government of the day.

That is a considered, thoughtful, responsive, responsible approach to the Henry tax inquiry. It is a thoughtful, considered, balanced, responsive plan for going ahead in due course when Mr Swan chooses to release the report for publication some time prior to the budget. When one thinks about it that will be some time over the next 10 weeks. This review has been two years in the making, but it is part of 25 years of ongoing reforms. There has been 25 years of substantial reform by, first, the Hawke and Keating governments and then by the Howard government. Further work has been commissioned. It has been received and it will be released, along with, I suggest, a very useful action plan for the implementation of those matters that are considered worthwhile and appropriate.

In terms of the other matters that were raised by Senator Joyce, he cloaks his argument by presenting questions on the Henry tax review relating to the mishmash of a maternity leave policy that his leader presented early last week. That was simply a plan for uncertainty in the future. It is a reckless idea, thought up the night before, put on paper as a few words in a public forum and released as such. There was no consideration as to its real costings, no consideration as to its impact on the corporate sector in this country, no consideration as to its flow-on effects on those smaller elements in the business community, no consideration given at all as to whether it can be a one-off payment— (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government is a secretive government; it is not an open and transparent government. The Rudd Labor government is a tricky government which selectively leaks, according to its political self-interest, parts of reports whenever it suits it. This is a government that is no longer governing in the national interest; it is a government that is focused on its political self-interest. And we are now being told that the Henry review report is going to be released before the budget. The government has had it for 85 days, and we are now being told it is going to be released before the budget. But was that a spontaneous decision? Was that as a result of the Prime Minister’s instinct for openness and transparency? No, it was not. The Prime Minister had to be shamed into it. The Prime Minister had to be shamed into a concession when even his senior cabinet colleagues could see that he was going down the wrong path. They tapped him on the shoulder and they said, ‘Kevin, we should really release this before the budget.’ Finally there was a degree of concession.

But who knows in what form it is going to be put out there, because we now have a plethora of reviews across government that are being kept secret, whether it is the National Broadband Network implementation study, which is being kept secret, whether it is the underlying information on the economic modelling of the government’s flawed emissions trading scheme—its $120 billion great big new tax on everything—or whether it is reports into when the government was first told about serious safety risks for workers involved in the home insulation fiasco. They are just some of the reports that the government is keeping secret, and of course before the election we were told that this was going to be a new era of openness and transparency.

The Rudd Labor government, like Labor governments before it, is a high-taxing, high-spending, high-borrowing government. This government did not wait for the economic downturn to start ratcheting up taxing and spending. In its first budget, well before the global economic downturn, the Rudd Labor government increased taxes by $20 billion. That included the $3.1 billion tax grab on alcopops, the $2½ billion tax grab on the North West Shelf project in Western Australia. It also included student taxes. You really have to wonder: what does this government have against young people?

Here we are, 85 days from when the government received the Henry tax review report, and we still have not seen it. What do they have to hide? What is their secret tax plan? Are they planning to remove the capital gains tax discount? Are they planning to increase capital gains tax? Are they planning to increase the GST? We know that the Prime Minister wants to steal 30 per cent of the GST from the states, but do they want to increase the rate? Do they want to increase the Medicare levy? Do they want to introduce death taxes? Do they want to introduce a resource rent tax, which is going to be another attack on states like Western Australia? Do they want to get rid of negative gearing? Who knows, because this secretive and tricky government are keeping it secret. This is a government of all spin, no substance. They are focused on a pre-election political strategy to time the release of this report to minimise any fall out for themselves in terms of their re-election chances. All talk, no action; all spin, no substance.

Contrast this with us. Tony Abbott and the coalition put forward a proposal for a national paid parental leave scheme which is fully funded. We were very transparent about how we would raise the funds to pay for it. We are out there, open in the public domain. Contrast that with Labor’s secret plan. If Labor, in the lead-up to the next election, were to come out and rule out taxes, I would say to the Australian people: you cannot trust a word they are saying. Just look at what they said before the last election. Before the last election Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon gave the most emphatic promise that they would retain the existing private health insurance rebates. What happened after the next election? We know what happened after the election: they have now tried twice to ram legislation through this Senate which would reduce or scrap altogether private health insurance rebates for millions of Australian, a measure which would be bad for our health system and bad for 11 million privately insured Australians. We know that this government has a track record of saying one thing before an election and doing another after the election. Clearly, Australians cannot believe one single word that this government says about taxes. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it absolutely amazing that Senator Joyce, in his belated return to the floor of the Senate, after being told by the party leader that he needs to pull his head in, is raising the issue of tax and the Henry tax review. For Senator Joyce to talk about issues such as irresponsibility and uncertainty is the height of hypocrisy. The irresponsibility of Senator Joyce in terms of his lack of understanding, lack of grip, lack of knowledge about the portfolio that was given to him by an opposition leader who was desperate to paper over the cracks and the problems in the coalition—as part of that papering over he gave Senator Joyce and the National Party the hold of the levers of what could be the economy of this country—is absolutely mind boggling.

This government has a good record on tax. We are proud of our record on tax. I will tell you what we want to do: we want to make sure that the people who can pay the tax pay tax and those who need the help can get help. That is the way this government operates. For Senator Cormann to start mentioning Western Australia, after the National Party in the west have said that Senator Cormann has failed Western Australia, that Senator Cormann is not delivering for Western Australia, again shows he has a bit of a hide. He is trying to take the heat off the divisions and the cracks between the coalition and the Nationals in Western Australia. To come here and try to attack us on tax is a bit rich. If you are not doing the job for Western Australia, let someone come in that is going to do the job for Western Australia. The Nationals know that you are not doing the job for Western Australia. Your own side know that you are not doing the job!

They talk about secrecy. This is a former government, under Howard, who their own side described as mean, tricky and nasty. Your own national president described you as mean, tricky and nasty! So don’t come in here trying to tell us about what we should be doing, because on tax we are not mean, we are not tricky and we are not nasty the way the coalition were mean, tricky and nasty in their political position when they were in government. We will be delivering a doubling of the low-income tax offset from $750 in 2007-08 to $1,500 by 1 July 2010. We are delivering on tax. We are not like the coalition, who want to sit back and do negative carping—just say no to everything that comes up here. For the coalition to talk about the national interest is an absolute joke. You have not put the national interest upfront with any issue. It has been short-termism, trying to score political points and ignoring the interests of this nation.

You are an absolute rabble and a joke as an opposition—an absolute joke. You do not have the courage of your own convictions. What are you doing with this great big new tax that you want to introduce on big business in this country? You are actually trashing the values and the commitments that you have argued for years is the way forward—the low-tax coalition! What does Mr Abbott do as soon as he becomes leader? He starts a big new tax on the top end of town—a big new tax on big business. It is clear that not even Andrew Bolt can find a good word for your taxation approach. Not even Peter Costello can find a good word for your big new tax—not one word of support for what you are doing. Everyone knows it was just a thought bubble. Everyone knows it was a knee-jerk reaction. It is quite clear that you have no idea what to do in the national interest, and your own side has you picked. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a confession to make. I hesitate to do so, because I fear I might earn the ire of Senator Adams and Senator Cormann, but I am actually quite a fan of Senator Conroy. I know the Prime Minister is not, so I am very proud to stand with Senator Conroy today. I think he more closely approximates an economic rationalist than most of his Labor colleagues, putting a box around the NBN. What’s $42 billion between friends? He is very solid on the US alliance and he is a bit of a fan of free trade. I think many of my colleagues on this side were very sad when Senator Conroy lost his position in this chamber representing the Treasurer, so I was delighted today to see Senator Conroy reprise that role in the absence of Senator Sherry.

It is because I am such a fan of Senator Conroy that I felt disappointed by him today—or let down would probably be a better way of putting it. That is why I feel compelled to join in the debate today to take note of his lack of answers to Senator Joyce’s questions on the Henry tax review. I think we all remember when the Henry tax review was announced on 13 May 2008—almost two years ago—the excitement about and anticipation of the review. The review was announced in the context that there had not been—and I quote from the press release of the Treasurer, Mr Swan—‘a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system, including state taxes, for at least the last 50 years’. That is true if you ignore the new tax system of the coalition. It is also true if you ignore that great economic summit down at Old Parliament House, out of which came the famous option C: the Keating consumption tax model. If you ignore those two significant events, Mr Swan’s statement is true.

We were extremely excited when we heard about the tax review. At that time we were told that the final report to the Treasurer would be by the end of 2009. The government were true to their word: on the death knock of 2009—I think it was Christmas Eve—the report was handed to the Treasurer. We have waited and waited and waited for the government’s response, but waiting is sometimes a good thing because it gives you a chance to reflect. While I have been waiting I have been reflecting on another project that Dr Henry was deeply and intimately involved with, and that of course was the new tax system—the GST. I recall the response of the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, at that time when he said:

When the history of this parliament, this nation and this century is written, 30 June 1999 will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice—an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians. It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up.

He went on:

It will be recorded as the day when the parliament of this country said to the poor of the country that they could all go and take a running jump.

The member for Griffith would have been extremely disappointed when the then leader of his party, Mr Beazley, announced the end of the rollback policy. Labor were going to abandon the rollback policy of repealing the GST. I was incredibly surprised that the Henry review specifically said that it would look all Australian government taxes except the GST, because I would have thought that, remembering Fundamental Injustice Day, the member for Griffith would have thought, ‘The first thing I want to do with a new tax system is abolish the GST,’ which he did not do. I am glad he did not, because I think the GST was an important reform. Clearly this government does not have the strength of its own convictions.

The Treasurer, on the Insiders program a few weeks ago, finally declared that we would have the benefit of the Henry review by the budget. He did not say ‘before the budget’; he said ‘by the budget’. The reason was that this is a review that this government wants to bury. Senator Bishop did acknowledge the work of the Howard government and the previous Keating government in tax. This government has yet to do anything on tax. It will not do anything on tax. It wants to bury this review. This is not a reformist government.

Question agreed to.