Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of all responses to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.

I think what we have seen today in question time is an example of a government that cannot change its stripes, a government that this country cannot trust and a government that has got no idea about what the real future of this country is. You can change your leader, but you certainly cannot change the extremism; you cannot change the attacks on working people; you cannot change the lack of knowledge that this government has on what is good for this country—that cannot be changed by simply changing the Prime Minister.

Look at what has been done here today. This is a government that said unequivocally to the people in South Australia that 12 submarines would be built in South Australia—no ifs, no buts, no whatevers. There was an unequivocal commitment, prior to the last election, that 12 submarines would be built. We have heard the new minister here today being unable or unwilling to meet that commitment that was given when this government was looking for votes in South Australia. They just cannot be trusted.

We have heard the response from Senator Fifield on the National Broadband Network. I have to tell you: I know what people in my area in the lower Blue Mountains and in the seat of Macquarie think about this 'multitechnology mix': it simply means more reliance on a system that is failing. About a 1.25 megabit download off the corroding copper in the Blue Mountains—that is not innovation; that is not resilience; that is not being agile; that is being stuck in the past. That is what this current Prime Minister has given us with this so-called multitechnology mix—an absolute mess: corroding copper cables that will not deliver a modern technology to houses in regions right around this country.

So, they have failed on their promises on jobs. They have failed on their promises on technology. They have failed on the NBN, and they have certainly failed with the commitments they gave about no changes to the GST, because everyone knows that is the next thing on the agenda—the GST. They say it is an efficient tax. It might be efficient, because it will efficiently gouge the poorest people in this country. It will gouge low income earners. It will gouge families battling to make a living. This is a bad tax. It will cost an extra $50,000 to build a house under the tax that this government is proposing.

If they stand up here this afternoon and say, 'Oh, no, we are just looking at it. There will be a white paper and we will look at it down the line,' they cannot be trusted. How can you trust a government that in its first budget attacked the low paid, attacked pensioners, attacked the health system, attacked the education system and attacked the most marginalised people in this country. These are the people who delivered cuts to the family tax benefit that hit the poorest one-fifth of people in this country by seven per cent—it increased their cost of living by seven per cent.

This is a government that cannot be trusted, a government that does not care about the poor in this country. They are not prepared to take on big business. They are not prepared to take on Chevron, who have paid only $248 in tax on a $1.7 billion profit. You don't hear them attacking Chevron. You don't hear them coming after the big businesses that are paying no tax. But they want to come after the pensioners. They want to come after poor families. They want to come after the battlers in this country. This is a bad government. It cannot be trusted. You can change the leader but you cannot change your values. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is difficult to know where to start with the Labor Party's question time strategy for today, given that Senator Cameron decided that he would take note of all the questions. You can see them flailing around for a message. They do not know what their message is going to be. But what we do know is that none of it is credible. It is not credible when Senator Cameron says it, it is not credible when Senator Conroy says it, and it is certainly not credible when Bill Shorten says it on behalf of the opposition. Let us look at a couple of things they raised and see how seriously we can take them.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron on a point of order.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senator should use a member's proper title. It is clearly understood in this place.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all senators to refer to members of the other place by their correct title.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly will. You certainly cannot take seriously what Senator Cameron says, what Senator Conroy says, nor what opposition leader Bill Shorten says, whether it is in this place, in the other place or anywhere else. Their record is so bad and they are being found out for having absolutely no policy on virtually anything. Let's look at tax. The Labor Party says that they want to engage in a conversation on tax.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a policy—get that right.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is fine. We believe there should be a conversation on tax, and that is why there is a series of processes for that. But the Labor Party has announced something like $62 billion in extra spending and something like $5 billion in revenue measures to deal with it. That is the Labor Party's current economic credentials, to say nothing of their record in office and to say nothing of the record debt and deficits they left us with. But, going forward, the Labor Party's position on tax is that they will pull a few billion back here and there, but they have $62 billion in promises to date. That is to say nothing of their intimation that they will somehow bring back an extra $80 billion of spending in health and education. That would go on top.

So let's have a fair dinkum conversation about it. Even ACOSS and other groups have said that they are open to a dialog to see how we can make sure we have the most effective, fair and efficient taxation system in this country. The coalition wants to see lower taxes. That is fundamentally what we want to see in the tax space. Unlike the Labor Party, we do not always look to increase taxes. We want to see lower taxes.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are increasing the GST.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not arguing in favour of an increase in the GST, but let's have a discussion about how we can lower income taxes. I would like to see income taxes lowered.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By raising the GST.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is a legitimate discussion to have. I am not afraid of it. But I want to see taxes come down. I do not want to see taxes go up overall. Unlike the Labor Party, who are so against the GST that they not only kept it when they came into government but they also put a carbon tax on top of it. They are so against it that they kept it and they added to it with an unnecessary carbon tax.

I do think that income taxes are too high in this country. I believe that a top marginal rate, which is at around 49 cents in the dollar now, is too high. I would like to see that come down. Any serious—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop using the Cayman Islands then.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your super fund uses it. Where do you think they invest.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Seselja, either resume your seat and I will bring the Senate to order, or press on if you would rather.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will press on. They have tried a number of different attacks today. We have had the NBN, the GST and now we have heard it again: they have resurrected the Cayman Islands attack. That was such a resounding success when they last tried it in the parliament. They raised it one day and walked away from it the next day at a million miles an hour because it was such a devastating attack! They are going to have to do better than that.

If the Labor Party wants to be taken seriously they are going to have to seriously engage in the debate on tax. You cannot have $62 billion in promises and $5 billion in revenue measures and claim that somehow that makes sense. I am open to the discussion. The fundamental for me and for the coalition is that we will bring tax down. Tax under the coalition will always be lower than under the Labor Party. That is a principle we have to fight for, and in any discussion about tax reform it is about how we lower the burden of tax on the Australian people. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same matter, and reflecting on question time today, one has to ponder, despite the reset that has occurred with the change of leadership for the Liberal-National Party government: what has changed? We will all recall Mr Abbott in the lead-up to the last election assuring us that there would be no cuts to the pension, no cuts to health, no cuts to education and a unity ticket on Gonski. We all, of course, know what happened, subsequently, in government. With that background and history, we are, we hope, a bit wiser when we look at the assurances we are now receiving about Mr Turnbull's plans. Those of us who have a healthy scepticism about a debate about a GST, and those of us who watched what occurred with respect to the introduction of the current GST, have every basis for that scepticism.

What did the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, tell us today? He told us it will be 'at some point in time'. Later on he told us that a white paper will be released before the next election. Seriously! How long is this government going to stay in this 'discovery phase', to use Senator Cormann's words? How long are we going to be exploring a hypothetical? How long are we going to be looking at these options? Today, he hid behind the states and territories when pinned down on the question of whether they were exploring the option of a GST revenue fully offset by personal income tax cuts. He sought to avoid answering that question and, ultimately, hid behind the states and territories when he was pinned on that point. The reason for that is what Senator Bernardi or Senator Macdonald would do were they here in this debate, and to an extent, even Senator Seselja, although I note that he did not get to talking about the tax impost on the lower income quintiles of our community. He did not get to that point when he was talking about concerns about the overall tax take, but I am sure he has similar concerns. This is why Senator Bernardi uses the term 'gouging'. This is the element that came out in the NATSEM modelling which I commend ACOSS for introducing into this pseudodebate so early in the piece, because they too have serious concerns about a GST.

We have in this parliament closely examined how the GST works—frankly, to death. We have looked closely at this option before. We know the implications. It was no surprise to me that the NATSEM report shows that the increase in the GST to fund a five percentage point reduction in all tax rates would reduce the progressivity of the tax system even more than raising the GST alone. This is what people are attempting to hide behind here. This is, essentially, like a reverse Robin Hood—this is what Malcolm Turnbull is being here. What we are talking about is taking from the lower income quartiles to 'incentivise' high-income earners. Which senators here remember 'incentivation'? I am sure Senator Conroy does. Wasn't that Mr Howard? Incentivation was the argument behind the GST, and that is why I am so sceptical when I follow Senator Seselja when he says, 'I don't like a GST, but I'm open to a discussion, but I am concerned about the top personal income tax rates.' Well, I am far more concerned about changes to our overall tax system—so let's move beyond saying that we are only talking about the GST—that will reduce its progressivity. That is the problem with the GST, and that is the problem with any tax mix that has that effect. When we start with the rhetoric that we need to incentivise and the like, that is all code for exactly that issue.

Looking at today's discussion and the time frames that we are told are before us in relation to Mr Turnbull's plans here, one is led to wonder: when will this government walk the talk? We know that Mr Abbott did not and we know what happened to him. How long until we can bring Mr Turnbull to walk the talk? (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very good thing that the opposition members cannot see the looks of abject terror on the faces of those young people up in the gallery, because the longer they have been here in Parliament House the more they have come to understand what the impact will be on them as adults should Labor ever again get into government. What we have seen here today is an absolute effort on the part of the Labor Party to deny their own responsibility for where we are today. Be under no illusion. I suggest to the young people up there to get their pens out and take note. This is the statistic that I want you to record: in this country today, we are paying $1.2 billion a month not on repaying the debt but on paying the interest on Labor's debt—it goes out the window every day. Do you know what that money stands for? It stands for a new primary school every 12 hours. Twice a day, seven days a week, because of Labor's effort in government, you are losing the opportunity for a new primary school every 12 hours, or a new major teaching hospital every eight weeks. Every two months we are denied the opportunity—you are denied the opportunity—for a new teaching hospital. That is what we are discussing here this afternoon. Heavens above! All Prime Minister Turnbull did was to say, 'We need to have a conversation.' There is no proposal before this chamber or the other place for a new GST.

What a short memory poor old Senator Collins has when she talks about the GST. Who was the first major proponent of a goods and services tax in the federal parliament? It was Mr Keating, the then Treasurer of this country. After the Liberal coalition government introduced a GST, what did Labor do in government? Over six years, I never heard a single word by Labor in government that they would rescind the goods and services tax. Have you? Has anybody? That is a good project for the young group: 'Go back to school next week, do the research and come back and tell us: did Labor in government want to remove the GST?' No, they did not.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got an eight and a half from me now.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ACOSS, quite rightly, has had some modelling done. At least they have done something positive. What the coalition government—Prime Minister Turnbull, Treasurer Morrison, innovation Minister Pyne—have said is: 'Let's have a conversation about it.' What people need to understand with bracket creep is that many, many employees in this country are going to be on the top marginal tax rate—49c in the dollar. Let's reflect for a second. Do you know what the marginal tax rate is in Singapore for employees? It is 15 per cent—not 49 per cent but 15 per cent. That is the tax rate. The company tax rate in Singapore is 17 per cent. Look at those incentives.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Incentives. How exciting.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are the second-highest taxing country in the OECD.

Only in the few minutes allowed to me do I want to comment on Senator Conroy's interjections with regard to the NBN. I remember when I came into this place in 2009 that Senator Conroy acted. People say it was written on a coaster; others say it was on a napkin. It was between himself and then Prime Minister Rudd, between Adelaide and Canberra. If it had been a Perth to Canberra flight, they might have come up with something a bit different. I remember asking Senator Conroy in my first days and weeks here: 'Where's the business plan, Stephen?' Do you know what we were told? 'You don't need a business plan for a multibillion-dollar NBN.' So I said, 'Where's the risk analysis? Where's the analysis that shows you the benefits and the costs?' All we ever got was, 'No, no, we're too good for that. We don't need to do that.' Eventually he was forced, kicking and screaming, to come up with some sort of model. I will never forget: the first opportunity to tell us how proud of it he was was at Midway Point in Tasmania. Senator Bilyk, sitting behind Senator Conroy, knows all about Midway Point. In the north of the state, all this technology was introduced in schools. It failed, like Labor will fail should they get back into government.